[Solved] wk 8 hra rep hmwrk

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

see attached

– 2 years ago

**files (2)**

– ## wk8hrarep.docx

– ## GradDiscussionRubric.pdf

**## wk8hrarep.docx**

**Respond to both peers' discussion responses below using APA format. Cite scholarly article**

**1. A**

Electric car maker Tesla, Inc., violated federal law by tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees and by subjecting some of these workers to retaliation for opposing the harassment (EEOC, 2024).  This article reports on a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Tesla, Inc., alleging that the company violated federal law by allowing widespread and ongoing racial harassment of Black employees at its Fremont, California location. This suit claims that from at least 2015 to currently, Black employees have endured racial abuse, stereotyping, and hostility.  This includes being subjected to racial slurs and graffiti with offensive symbols and threats.  This lawsuit also alleges that employees who opposed this harassment faced retaliation.

The employment law issue in this article centers on allegations of racial harassment and retaliation.  Tesla violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII prohibits racial harassment and requires employers to take prompt and appropriate action to investigate ans stop harassment when complaints are made.

This employment law issue of racial harassment and retaliation continues to be important to companies today because it is crucial for creating a healthy, productive, and legally compliant workplace. Workplace discrimination harms the workers who experience it, exacerbates structural and longstanding inequities in the U.S. labor market, and holds back economic growth and dynamism (Carmen Cumming, 2021)

EEOC sues Tesla for racial harassment and retaliation. US EEOC. (n.d.).
[https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation](https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation)

Openchowski, E. (2022, January 19). The importance of anti-discrimination enforcement for a fair and equitable U.S. labor market and broadly shared economic growth. Equitable Growth.
[https://equitablegrowth.org/the-importance-of-anti-discrimination-enforcement-for-a-fair-and-equitable-u-s-labor-market-and-broadly-shared-economic-growth/](https://equitablegrowth.org/the-importance-of-anti-discrimination-enforcement-for-a-fair-and-equitable-u-s-labor-market-and-broadly-shared-economic-growth/)

**1.B**

A recent Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (2024) has made it easier for employees to claim workplace discrimination. In this case, a female police sergeant was reassigned to a different role despite her strong performance. Although she did not experience a pay cut or demotion, she lost important benefits like her FBI status and a more predictable schedule. Lower courts ruled that she could not claim discrimination because her financial situation did not change. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and said that employees only need to show that the job action caused harm, not necessarily a significant financial loss, to prove discrimination (Totenberg, 2024).

This ruling ties back to Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006), which set the precedent that retaliation does not have to involve firing or demotion (justia, n.d.). Any action discouraging a reasonable employee from filing a discrimination complaint can be considered retaliation. Muldrow further emphasizes that even changes like losing career opportunities or schedule stability can count as discrimination.

Employers must ensure their decisions are unbiased and be prepared to justify them to avoid legal challenges. While some may fear an increase in lawsuits, this ruling promotes fairer, more transparent treatment of employees. Ultimately, it shows that workplace discrimination is about fair and respectful treatment, not just financial harm.

References:

Totenberg, N. (2024, April 17). The Supreme Court opens the door to more discrimination claims involving job transfers. NPR.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245309316/supreme-court-decision-employee-discrimination-work-transfers](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245309316/supreme-court-decision-employee-discrimination-work-transfers)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).
[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/53/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/53/)

less

**## GradDiscussionRubric.pdf**

TCOB Graduate Studies Discussion Rubric

Criteria No Submission

0 points

Novice
(Criterion is missing or not

in evidence)
1-13 points

Basic
(works towards meeting

expectations;
performance needs

improvement)
14-16 points

Proficient
(meets expectations;

performance is satisfactory)
17-18 points

Exemplary
(exceeds expectations;

performance is outstanding)
19-20 points

Support of
Week's Reading

No Student
Submission
(0 points)

Does not refer to the
readings to support postings

(1-13 points)

Alludes to the readings
to support postings

(14-16 points)

Refers to examples from the
readings to support postings

(17-18 points)

Provides concrete examples from
the readings to support postings;

integrates prior readings in
postings

(19-20 points)

Observations No Student
Submission
(0 points)

Does not integrate personal
observations or knowledge;

does not present new
observations
(1-13 points)

Integrates personal
observations and

knowledge in a cursory
manner; does not

present new
observations

(14-16 points)

Integrates personal
observations and knowledge
in an accurate way; presents

new observations
(17-18 points)

Integrates personal observations
and knowledge in an accurate and

highly insightful way; presents
new observations

(19-20 points)

Response to
Classmates

No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Responds in a cursory
manner to classmates’

postings
(1-13 points)

Constructively responds
to classmates’ postings

(14-16 points)

Constructively responds to
classmates’ postings; offers

insight that encourages other
students to think critically

about their own work.
(17-18 points)

Constructively responds to
classmates’ postings; masterfully
connects the material presented
in classmates’ postings to their

responses; encourages classmates
to think critically about their own

work.
(19-20 points)

Organization,
Word Choice,
and Sentence

Structure

No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Posts are disorganized and
information is not presented
in a logical sequence; word

choice and sentence
structure are not suitable

(1-13 points)

Posts are somewhat
disorganized, and
information is not

presented in a logical
sequence; word choice
and sentence structure

are not suitable
(14-16 points)

Posts are organized, and
information is presented in a

logical sequence; word
choice and sentence

structure are suitable; there
are a few errors; however,

errors do not affect
readability.

(17-18 points)

Posts are organized and
information is presented in a

logical sequence; word choice and
sentence structure are suitable;

no errors in the response.
(19-20 points)

References No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Includes no sources to
support conclusions

(1-13 points)

Includes 1 outside
source to support and
enrich the discussion;

Includes 2 or more outside
sources to support and
enrich the discussion;

sources are properly cited in

Includes 2 or more outside
sources to support and enrich the
discussion; sources are cited using

APA format; style guidelines are

TCOB Graduate Studies Discussion Rubric

sources are not properly
cited in APA format

(14-16 points)

APA format and are properly
integrated into the discussion

response
(17-18 points)

masterfully integrated into the
discussion response.

(19-20 points)

**## GradDiscussionRubric.pdf**

TCOB Graduate Studies Discussion Rubric

Criteria No Submission

0 points

Novice
(Criterion is missing or not

in evidence)
1-13 points

Basic
(works towards meeting

expectations;
performance needs

improvement)
14-16 points

Proficient
(meets expectations;

performance is satisfactory)
17-18 points

Exemplary
(exceeds expectations;

performance is outstanding)
19-20 points

Support of
Week's Reading

No Student
Submission
(0 points)

Does not refer to the
readings to support postings

(1-13 points)

Alludes to the readings
to support postings

(14-16 points)

Refers to examples from the
readings to support postings

(17-18 points)

Provides concrete examples from
the readings to support postings;

integrates prior readings in
postings

(19-20 points)

Observations No Student
Submission
(0 points)

Does not integrate personal
observations or knowledge;

does not present new
observations
(1-13 points)

Integrates personal
observations and

knowledge in a cursory
manner; does not

present new
observations

(14-16 points)

Integrates personal
observations and knowledge
in an accurate way; presents

new observations
(17-18 points)

Integrates personal observations
and knowledge in an accurate and

highly insightful way; presents
new observations

(19-20 points)

Response to
Classmates

No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Responds in a cursory
manner to classmates’

postings
(1-13 points)

Constructively responds
to classmates’ postings

(14-16 points)

Constructively responds to
classmates’ postings; offers

insight that encourages other
students to think critically

about their own work.
(17-18 points)

Constructively responds to
classmates’ postings; masterfully
connects the material presented
in classmates’ postings to their

responses; encourages classmates
to think critically about their own

work.
(19-20 points)

Organization,
Word Choice,
and Sentence

Structure

No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Posts are disorganized and
information is not presented
in a logical sequence; word

choice and sentence
structure are not suitable

(1-13 points)

Posts are somewhat
disorganized, and
information is not

presented in a logical
sequence; word choice
and sentence structure

are not suitable
(14-16 points)

Posts are organized, and
information is presented in a

logical sequence; word
choice and sentence

structure are suitable; there
are a few errors; however,

errors do not affect
readability.

(17-18 points)

Posts are organized and
information is presented in a

logical sequence; word choice and
sentence structure are suitable;

no errors in the response.
(19-20 points)

References No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Includes no sources to
support conclusions

(1-13 points)

Includes 1 outside
source to support and
enrich the discussion;

Includes 2 or more outside
sources to support and
enrich the discussion;

sources are properly cited in

Includes 2 or more outside
sources to support and enrich the
discussion; sources are cited using

APA format; style guidelines are

TCOB Graduate Studies Discussion Rubric

sources are not properly
cited in APA format

(14-16 points)

APA format and are properly
integrated into the discussion

response
(17-18 points)

masterfully integrated into the
discussion response.

(19-20 points)

**## wk8hrarep.docx**

**Respond to both peers' discussion responses below using APA format. Cite scholarly article**

**1. A**

Electric car maker Tesla, Inc., violated federal law by tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees and by subjecting some of these workers to retaliation for opposing the harassment (EEOC, 2024).  This article reports on a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Tesla, Inc., alleging that the company violated federal law by allowing widespread and ongoing racial harassment of Black employees at its Fremont, California location. This suit claims that from at least 2015 to currently, Black employees have endured racial abuse, stereotyping, and hostility.  This includes being subjected to racial slurs and graffiti with offensive symbols and threats.  This lawsuit also alleges that employees who opposed this harassment faced retaliation.

The employment law issue in this article centers on allegations of racial harassment and retaliation.  Tesla violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII prohibits racial harassment and requires employers to take prompt and appropriate action to investigate ans stop harassment when complaints are made.

This employment law issue of racial harassment and retaliation continues to be important to companies today because it is crucial for creating a healthy, productive, and legally compliant workplace. Workplace discrimination harms the workers who experience it, exacerbates structural and longstanding inequities in the U.S. labor market, and holds back economic growth and dynamism (Carmen Cumming, 2021)

EEOC sues Tesla for racial harassment and retaliation. US EEOC. (n.d.).
[https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation](https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation)

Openchowski, E. (2022, January 19). The importance of anti-discrimination enforcement for a fair and equitable U.S. labor market and broadly shared economic growth. Equitable Growth.
[https://equitablegrowth.org/the-importance-of-anti-discrimination-enforcement-for-a-fair-and-equitable-u-s-labor-market-and-broadly-shared-economic-growth/](https://equitablegrowth.org/the-importance-of-anti-discrimination-enforcement-for-a-fair-and-equitable-u-s-labor-market-and-broadly-shared-economic-growth/)

**1.B**

A recent Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (2024) has made it easier for employees to claim workplace discrimination. In this case, a female police sergeant was reassigned to a different role despite her strong performance. Although she did not experience a pay cut or demotion, she lost important benefits like her FBI status and a more predictable schedule. Lower courts ruled that she could not claim discrimination because her financial situation did not change. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and said that employees only need to show that the job action caused harm, not necessarily a significant financial loss, to prove discrimination (Totenberg, 2024).

This ruling ties back to Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006), which set the precedent that retaliation does not have to involve firing or demotion (justia, n.d.). Any action discouraging a reasonable employee from filing a discrimination complaint can be considered retaliation. Muldrow further emphasizes that even changes like losing career opportunities or schedule stability can count as discrimination.

Employers must ensure their decisions are unbiased and be prepared to justify them to avoid legal challenges. While some may fear an increase in lawsuits, this ruling promotes fairer, more transparent treatment of employees. Ultimately, it shows that workplace discrimination is about fair and respectful treatment, not just financial harm.

References:

Totenberg, N. (2024, April 17). The Supreme Court opens the door to more discrimination claims involving job transfers. NPR.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245309316/supreme-court-decision-employee-discrimination-work-transfers](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245309316/supreme-court-decision-employee-discrimination-work-transfers)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).
[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/53/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/53/)

less

**## GradDiscussionRubric.pdf**

TCOB Graduate Studies Discussion Rubric

Criteria No Submission

0 points

Novice
(Criterion is missing or not

in evidence)
1-13 points

Basic
(works towards meeting

expectations;
performance needs

improvement)
14-16 points

Proficient
(meets expectations;

performance is satisfactory)
17-18 points

Exemplary
(exceeds expectations;

performance is outstanding)
19-20 points

Support of
Week's Reading

No Student
Submission
(0 points)

Does not refer to the
readings to support postings

(1-13 points)

Alludes to the readings
to support postings

(14-16 points)

Refers to examples from the
readings to support postings

(17-18 points)

Provides concrete examples from
the readings to support postings;

integrates prior readings in
postings

(19-20 points)

Observations No Student
Submission
(0 points)

Does not integrate personal
observations or knowledge;

does not present new
observations
(1-13 points)

Integrates personal
observations and

knowledge in a cursory
manner; does not

present new
observations

(14-16 points)

Integrates personal
observations and knowledge
in an accurate way; presents

new observations
(17-18 points)

Integrates personal observations
and knowledge in an accurate and

highly insightful way; presents
new observations

(19-20 points)

Response to
Classmates

No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Responds in a cursory
manner to classmates’

postings
(1-13 points)

Constructively responds
to classmates’ postings

(14-16 points)

Constructively responds to
classmates’ postings; offers

insight that encourages other
students to think critically

about their own work.
(17-18 points)

Constructively responds to
classmates’ postings; masterfully
connects the material presented
in classmates’ postings to their

responses; encourages classmates
to think critically about their own

work.
(19-20 points)

Organization,
Word Choice,
and Sentence

Structure

No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Posts are disorganized and
information is not presented
in a logical sequence; word

choice and sentence
structure are not suitable

(1-13 points)

Posts are somewhat
disorganized, and
information is not

presented in a logical
sequence; word choice
and sentence structure

are not suitable
(14-16 points)

Posts are organized, and
information is presented in a

logical sequence; word
choice and sentence

structure are suitable; there
are a few errors; however,

errors do not affect
readability.

(17-18 points)

Posts are organized and
information is presented in a

logical sequence; word choice and
sentence structure are suitable;

no errors in the response.
(19-20 points)

References No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Includes no sources to
support conclusions

(1-13 points)

Includes 1 outside
source to support and
enrich the discussion;

Includes 2 or more outside
sources to support and
enrich the discussion;

sources are properly cited in

Includes 2 or more outside
sources to support and enrich the
discussion; sources are cited using

APA format; style guidelines are

TCOB Graduate Studies Discussion Rubric

sources are not properly
cited in APA format

(14-16 points)

APA format and are properly
integrated into the discussion

response
(17-18 points)

masterfully integrated into the
discussion response.

(19-20 points)

**## wk8hrarep.docx**

**Respond to both peers' discussion responses below using APA format. Cite scholarly article**

**1. A**

Electric car maker Tesla, Inc., violated federal law by tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees and by subjecting some of these workers to retaliation for opposing the harassment (EEOC, 2024).  This article reports on a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Tesla, Inc., alleging that the company violated federal law by allowing widespread and ongoing racial harassment of Black employees at its Fremont, California location. This suit claims that from at least 2015 to currently, Black employees have endured racial abuse, stereotyping, and hostility.  This includes being subjected to racial slurs and graffiti with offensive symbols and threats.  This lawsuit also alleges that employees who opposed this harassment faced retaliation.

The employment law issue in this article centers on allegations of racial harassment and retaliation.  Tesla violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII prohibits racial harassment and requires employers to take prompt and appropriate action to investigate ans stop harassment when complaints are made.

This employment law issue of racial harassment and retaliation continues to be important to companies today because it is crucial for creating a healthy, productive, and legally compliant workplace. Workplace discrimination harms the workers who experience it, exacerbates structural and longstanding inequities in the U.S. labor market, and holds back economic growth and dynamism (Carmen Cumming, 2021)

EEOC sues Tesla for racial harassment and retaliation. US EEOC. (n.d.).
[https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation](https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation)

Openchowski, E. (2022, January 19). The importance of anti-discrimination enforcement for a fair and equitable U.S. labor market and broadly shared economic growth. Equitable Growth.
[https://equitablegrowth.org/the-importance-of-anti-discrimination-enforcement-for-a-fair-and-equitable-u-s-labor-market-and-broadly-shared-economic-growth/](https://equitablegrowth.org/the-importance-of-anti-discrimination-enforcement-for-a-fair-and-equitable-u-s-labor-market-and-broadly-shared-economic-growth/)

**1.B**

A recent Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (2024) has made it easier for employees to claim workplace discrimination. In this case, a female police sergeant was reassigned to a different role despite her strong performance. Although she did not experience a pay cut or demotion, she lost important benefits like her FBI status and a more predictable schedule. Lower courts ruled that she could not claim discrimination because her financial situation did not change. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and said that employees only need to show that the job action caused harm, not necessarily a significant financial loss, to prove discrimination (Totenberg, 2024).

This ruling ties back to Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006), which set the precedent that retaliation does not have to involve firing or demotion (justia, n.d.). Any action discouraging a reasonable employee from filing a discrimination complaint can be considered retaliation. Muldrow further emphasizes that even changes like losing career opportunities or schedule stability can count as discrimination.

Employers must ensure their decisions are unbiased and be prepared to justify them to avoid legal challenges. While some may fear an increase in lawsuits, this ruling promotes fairer, more transparent treatment of employees. Ultimately, it shows that workplace discrimination is about fair and respectful treatment, not just financial harm.

References:

Totenberg, N. (2024, April 17). The Supreme Court opens the door to more discrimination claims involving job transfers. NPR.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245309316/supreme-court-decision-employee-discrimination-work-transfers](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245309316/supreme-court-decision-employee-discrimination-work-transfers)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).
[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/53/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/53/)

less

**## GradDiscussionRubric.pdf**

TCOB Graduate Studies Discussion Rubric

Criteria No Submission

0 points

Novice
(Criterion is missing or not

in evidence)
1-13 points

Basic
(works towards meeting

expectations;
performance needs

improvement)
14-16 points

Proficient
(meets expectations;

performance is satisfactory)
17-18 points

Exemplary
(exceeds expectations;

performance is outstanding)
19-20 points

Support of
Week's Reading

No Student
Submission
(0 points)

Does not refer to the
readings to support postings

(1-13 points)

Alludes to the readings
to support postings

(14-16 points)

Refers to examples from the
readings to support postings

(17-18 points)

Provides concrete examples from
the readings to support postings;

integrates prior readings in
postings

(19-20 points)

Observations No Student
Submission
(0 points)

Does not integrate personal
observations or knowledge;

does not present new
observations
(1-13 points)

Integrates personal
observations and

knowledge in a cursory
manner; does not

present new
observations

(14-16 points)

Integrates personal
observations and knowledge
in an accurate way; presents

new observations
(17-18 points)

Integrates personal observations
and knowledge in an accurate and

highly insightful way; presents
new observations

(19-20 points)

Response to
Classmates

No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Responds in a cursory
manner to classmates’

postings
(1-13 points)

Constructively responds
to classmates’ postings

(14-16 points)

Constructively responds to
classmates’ postings; offers

insight that encourages other
students to think critically

about their own work.
(17-18 points)

Constructively responds to
classmates’ postings; masterfully
connects the material presented
in classmates’ postings to their

responses; encourages classmates
to think critically about their own

work.
(19-20 points)

Organization,
Word Choice,
and Sentence

Structure

No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Posts are disorganized and
information is not presented
in a logical sequence; word

choice and sentence
structure are not suitable

(1-13 points)

Posts are somewhat
disorganized, and
information is not

presented in a logical
sequence; word choice
and sentence structure

are not suitable
(14-16 points)

Posts are organized, and
information is presented in a

logical sequence; word
choice and sentence

structure are suitable; there
are a few errors; however,

errors do not affect
readability.

(17-18 points)

Posts are organized and
information is presented in a

logical sequence; word choice and
sentence structure are suitable;

no errors in the response.
(19-20 points)

References No Student
Submission

(0 points)

Includes no sources to
support conclusions

(1-13 points)

Includes 1 outside
source to support and
enrich the discussion;

Includes 2 or more outside
sources to support and
enrich the discussion;

sources are properly cited in

Includes 2 or more outside
sources to support and enrich the
discussion; sources are cited using

APA format; style guidelines are

TCOB Graduate Studies Discussion Rubric

sources are not properly
cited in APA format

(14-16 points)

APA format and are properly
integrated into the discussion

response
(17-18 points)

masterfully integrated into the
discussion response.

(19-20 points)