Individual Assignment #1: “Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County”.
MGMT 6374 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
November 2, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1 Critical Issues 1 ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence ADEA Requirements for Conclusive Evidence and Relevant Court Cases Critical Evaluation of the I/O Psychologist Report 2 Potential Additional Evidence Needed for Zimpfer 3 Potential Rebuttal Evidence Needed for the County 3 Conclusions 4 Recommendations to the County Future Preventive Actions Needed
Introduction The “Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County” case is about a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer
…show more content…
Zimpfer but he could possess more knowledge of the particular skills that are needed for this position. Since Zimpfer had been working with the county for 16 years, they would be able to get some more information about him from his past and present supervisors. Likewise, the county could have received very positive recommendations sent by Mr. Merriman’s previous employers on his behalf. Dr. Josephs didn’t have access to these and therefore could not consider these key pieces of information when filling out her work requirement matrix. It also could be that she intentionally left out information that would be unfavorable to her client. Potential Additional Evidence Needed for Zimpfer There is some additional evidence that Mr. Zimpfer could introduce to show that the county did in fact discriminate against him. He could produce the job performance reports he has received while working for the county that show him to be an exemplary worker, and recommend him for promotion. This combined with the I/O psychologist’s report would help him meet the second requirement needed to establish a prima facie. He could also look to see if Palm Beach County has a trend of passing up older employees for younger employees when filling up managerial positions. Potential Rebuttal Evidence Needed for the County The attorney for the HR manager for Palm Beach County could introduce some additional evidence that would help prove that his client did not