Discharge For Sexual Harassment
MGT 3320: Human Resources
Module 2 Case Study Assignment: Discharge for Sexual Harassment
Guidelines and Rubric
Overview:
In this assignment, you will analyze a case study dealing with the seriousness of perceived sexual misconduct. This case looks at an example of a common type of seemingly “innocent” interaction, that can easily get out of control. You will discover that reality is in the eye of the beholder and behavior and actions should remain professional at all times in the workplace.
Prompt:
For this assignment, review Case Study 2: Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment, in Chapter 3 of the text and then address the following in your written analysis:
- Identify any behavioral warning signs that were present in this case
- Assess what proactive measures the organization could have taken to prevent something problematic from happening
- Evaluate whether the final outcome was this the correct decision
- Suggest what could have been done differently by any of the parties involved, or the organization itself, that might have led to different outcomes in this case
- Recommend how this could be used to help develop awareness for all employees
Guidelines for Submission: Your written analysis must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document, 2-5 pages in length, with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and any resources used must be cited in APA format.
Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center.
Rubric
Criteria | Exemplary (100%) | Needs Improvement (75%) | Not Evident (0%) | Value |
Warning
Signs |
Identifies any behavioral warning signs that were present in this case. | Identifies any behavioral warning signs that were present in this case, but lacks
in detail or clarity, or contains inaccuracies. |
Does not identify any behavioral warning signs that were present in this case. | 18 |
Prevention | Assesses what proactive measures the organization could have taken to prevent something problematic from happening. | Assesses what proactive measures the organization could have taken to prevent something problematic from happening, but lacks in detail or clarity. | Does not assess what proactive measures the organization could have taken to prevent something problematic from happening. | 18 |
Outcome | Evaluates whether the final outcome was this the correct decision.
|
Evaluates whether the final outcome was this the correct decision, but lacks in detail or clarity. | Does not evaluate whether the final outcome was this the correct decision. | 18 |
Change | Suggests what could have been done differently by any of the parties involved or the organization itself that might have led to different outcomes in this case. | Suggests what could have been done differently by any of the parties involved or the organization itself that might have led to different outcomes in this case, but lacks in detail or clarity, or suggestion is inappropriate for this situation. | Does not suggest what could have been done differently by any of the parties involved or the organization itself that might have led to different outcomes in this case. | 18 |
Development | Recommends how this could be used to help develop awareness for all employees. | Recommends how this could be used to help develop awareness for all employees, but lacks in detail or clarity, or recommendation is inappropriate for this situation. | Does not recommend how this could be used to help develop awareness for all employees. | 18 |
Mechanics | No grammar or spelling errors that distract the reader from the content. All sources used are cited using APA Style, 6th ed. | Minor errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. All sources used are cited using APA Style, 6th ed. | Major errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content and/or errors made in citing sources using APA Style, 6th ed. | 10 |
Total | 100% |
2