ME MORANDUM TO: Human Resources Director

FROM: Mark Taylor, Department Head

SUBJECT: Promotions of Margaret Adams and Beth Taylor

           

We are at the point where we must make a decision on the promotions of Margaret Adams and Beth Taylor of our administrative staff. They are both very competent employees and I am convinced that they are capable of handling even more responsibility.

 

Margaret's file indicates that she has history of chemical dependency but has had treatment and has been okay for a year. She is not currently enrolled in any treatment program. She believes that she should very rarely stay late at the office or participate in weekend meetings. She believes that her first duty is to her health, and she should manage her time accordingly.

 

In Beth's case, however, I am not altogether certain that she is willing to subordinate time with her family to time on the job, to the extent that may be required. I have had the opportunity to explore with her the general problem of family vs. job, and she strongly believes that she should very rarely stay late at the office or participate in weekend meetings. She believes that her first duty is to her family and she should manage her time accordingly. These viewpoints have not affected their performance in the past, but it could be a problem in a more demanding role.

What do you think we should do? (You must choose only one response.)

 

1) Promote Margaret only.

2) Promote Beth only.

3) Promote both Margaret and Beth.

4) Promote neither Margaret nor Beth.

 

 Mondays often start with tough situations, but this one looks like it's going to be rough. Just a few minutes after arriving in your office, Chris Daniels, appeared at your door asking to speak to you immediately. Chris is a relatively recent hire, based on your assessment, a sure fire top performer. But the performance appraisal that was filed by her supervisor last week didn't bear that out - and that's exactly what Chris wants to talk about. After a few minutes of small talk, Chris hesitantly tells you that her supervisor, Ted Andrews, propositioned her. He promised her a favorable review and better work assignments if she would accompany him on a three-day technical conference. When she refused, her work assignments changed dramatically and a couple weeks later, he gave her a below average performance review. You collect a few more details from Chris, and then promise to investigate and get back to her.

 

It doesn't take long to collect some solid information that Chris's performance is actually above average and that another employee overheard enough of the supervisor's proposition to support Chris's charges. A quick check of the firm policy shows that the standard definitions of "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment" are provided plus a statement that says: "Any employee found guilty of sexual harassment will be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. "Before you can schedule a meeting with Chris's supervisor, Ted appears in your office. Letting him take the lead before you confront him with the sexual harassment charges, he presents another copy of Chris's below average review, plus a copy of her application and tells you that Chris has lied on her application blank, claiming to have earned her college degree when in fact she is six credits short of graduation. He wants you to initiate an immediate termination of Chris for "lying on her application."

 

1)Terminate Chris.

2)Terminate Ted.

3) Terminate both Chris and Ted.

4) Written warning to Chris.

5) Written warning to Ted.

6) Written warning to both Chris and Ted.

7) Terminate Chris. Written warning to Ted.

8) Terminate Ted. Written warning to Chris.