| Course | GB541 Strategic HR Law and Risk Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Risk register |
| Length | About 910 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB541 Unit 3
Ten Employment Exposures on Two Five-Point Scales: A Unit 3 Risk Register for a Veterinary Group
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB541: Strategic HR Law and Risk Management
Unit 3 Risk Register
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The veterinary group, its practices and every score and figure are composite and illustrative; the laws named are real and described as of the course term, and the register is educational, not legal advice.
Method
The register follows the general approach of the international risk management standard, which treats risk as the combination of likelihood and consequence and calls for criteria to be defined before risks are scored (International Organization for Standardization, 2018).
Likelihood, over a three-year horizon: level 1 means a chance below one in twenty, level 2 up to one in five, level 3 up to two in five, level 4 up to seven in ten, and level 5 anything more likely.
Impact, in dollars including fines, damages, back pay and defense costs: level 1 below $30,000, level 2 up to $150,000, level 3 up to $600,000, level 4 up to $2.5 million and level 5 beyond that.
Score: likelihood times impact, from 1 to 25.
Tie-break: when scores are equal, the exposure with the higher impact ranks first; if still tied, the one with the nearer likely trigger.
The Register
1. Fingerprint timeclocks at nine Illinois hospitals. About 310 employees clock in with fingerprints, and no written policy or signed consent has been found. Illinois law requires informed written consent and a published retention policy before collecting biometric identifiers and gives employees a private right of action with liquidated damages for each violation (Biometric Information Privacy Act, 2024). A 2024 amendment limits recovery to one violation per person, but at $1,000 to $5,000 per person the exposure is still large. Likelihood 4, impact 4, score 16.
2. Negative production balances recovered from veterinarians' salaries. Veterinarians earn a guaranteed salary plus production pay, and when production falls short, the shortfall is deducted from later salary. Exempt status requires a salary paid without reductions for the quantity or quality of work (29 C.F.R. § 541.602, 2024), so the deductions put the veterinarians' exemption, and back overtime, at risk. Likelihood 3, impact 4, score 12.
3. Non-competes for every employee. Covenants signed by technicians and receptionists are void or restricted in several of the seven states and may expose the company to fee awards and claims in some. Likelihood 4, impact 3, score 12.
4. Unreviewed paper I-9 forms from 21 acquired hospitals. About 3,950 forms have never been examined, and paperwork violations carry per-form penalties. Likelihood 4, impact 3, score 12.
5. Applicant screening software with adverse impact. A vendor tool advanced Black applicants at about 71 percent of the rate for white applicants, below the four-fifths guideline. Likelihood 3, impact 4, score 12.
6. Pregnancy accommodation practices. At least one hospital placed a pregnant technician on unpaid leave rather than adjusting duties. Likelihood 3, impact 3, score 9.
7. Columbus contact center closure. If notice under the federal plant closing law is given as planned, residual risk is low. Likelihood 2, impact 4, score 8.
8. Handbook clause banning pay discussions. The inherited clause conflicts with employees' federal right to discuss wages. Likelihood 3, impact 2, score 6.
9. Pay history question and missing pay ranges. Several states where Quillmere hires restrict pay history questions or require ranges in postings. Likelihood 3, impact 2, score 6.
10. Controlled substance loss investigations. Inconsistent handling of drug count discrepancies risks regulatory findings and wrongful accusations. Likelihood 2, impact 3, score 6.
The top five exposures are all inherited or automated practices that no one at the parent company chose, which is typical of a group built by acquisition.
Commentary
Ordering among the twelves. Exposures 2 to 5 all score 12. The tie-break ranks the two with impact 4, negative balances and screening software, above the two with impact 3. Negative balances rank second because recovery deductions recur every month, making the trigger nearer.
Why the timeclocks rank first. The Illinois statute's private right of action means employees, and their lawyers, can sue without any agency acting, and class actions under it have been common. The fix, written consent and a policy, or a switch to badge clocks, is simple, which makes delay hard to justify.
How the register will be used. Each exposure has an owner by title: the vice president of people operations for pay and policy items, the general counsel for litigation-prone items and the operations vice president for timeclocks and controlled substances. Owners review their rows quarterly and report any change in likelihood or impact. Exposures at twelve or above go to the risk treatment plan; those below are fixed through routine work or monitored.
What scored low and why. Exposures 8 and 9 are clear violations but carry modest dollar impact and are cheap to fix; the policy review memo in Unit 4 addresses both.
Limits of the scores. Multiplying the two scales has a known weakness: a rare but severe exposure and a frequent but minor one can share the same product, so the commentary reads each row's components as well as its score. Likelihood bands are judgments informed by counsel and enforcement trends, not actuarial estimates, and impact estimates assume one legal action per exposure rather than several. Scores should be updated when facts change, for example after the I-9 audit.
References
Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14 (2024).
29 C.F.R. § 541.602 (2024). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/541.602
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Risk management: Guidelines (ISO Standard No. 31000:2018).
GB541 Unit 3 instructions, in plain terms
GB541 Unit 3 has you construct a ranked register of an organization's employment law exposures. Define the likelihood and impact scales before scoring anything, with bands precise enough that two reviewers would score alike, and state how ties are broken. List eight to twelve exposures, each with a short description, the governing law and its likelihood, impact and combined score. Rank them. In commentary, explain the order among close scores, why the top exposure leads, who owns each row and how often it is reviewed, and what scored low and why. Acknowledge the limits of the method. Keep it to about four pages, citing statutes and a risk framework in APA 7.
Inside the GB541 Unit 3 example
The method section adopts the likelihood and consequence approach of ISO 31000 and defines five bands for each scale, from under one in twenty to more likely than seven in ten, and from under $30,000 to over $2.5 million. Ten rows follow, from the 310 Illinois employees clocking in by fingerprint at 16 to pay discussion rules, pay history and drug count handling at 6. The highlighted sentence observes that all five leaders are inherited or automated practices. Commentary applies the tie-break among the twelves, assigns owners by title, explains the low scores and admits that a rare severe risk and a frequent minor one can share a product.
Where the points sit in the GB541 Unit 3 rubric
GB541 instructors award points for a register whose scales are defined before any row is scored, because undefined bands make every score an opinion. Bands stated in probabilities and dollars show rigor. A tie-break rule shows the writer anticipated equal scores. Each row needs the law that creates the exposure, cited correctly. Commentary that explains the ranking, rather than restating it, shows analysis. Assigning owners and a review rhythm shows the register is meant to be used. Acknowledging the limits of a multiplied score shows judgment. The Illinois biometric privacy statute, the salary basis regulation and ISO 31000 supply the references, and each one supports a particular row or a method choice.
Common GB541 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB541 Unit 3 registers score exposures without first defining what each level means, so a grader cannot tell why one row earned a 4 and another a 3. Others list risks too vague to act on, such as compliance generally, instead of a specific practice at specific sites. A frequent gap is the tie: several exposures often share a score, and the register should say how they are ordered. Some writers stop at the table. Define the scales, describe each exposure concretely with its governing law, score and rank, explain the order, assign owners and admit what the method cannot capture. The register should hand a clear list to the treatment plan.
Get a GB541 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Your section may hand out its own organization or ask for one you know well. Either way, forward what Unit 3 asks for along with the rubric, and a register built to them, bands defined and every product shown, is ready in 24-48h. There is no charge for the first custom sample, and any scoring method the rubric names replaces the one shown. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB541 papers and MBA samples
- GB541 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB541 Unit 2: Legal Issue Analysis
- GB541 Unit 4: Policy Review Memo
- GB541 Unit 5: Case Analysis
- GB541 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB541 Unit 7: Investigation Protocol
- GB541 Unit 8: Compliance Audit Plan
- GB541 Unit 9: Risk Treatment Plan
- GB541 Unit 10: Executive Risk Briefing
- GB534 Unit 3: Motivation Analysis
- GB533 Unit 3: Workload Sizing Model
- GB532 Unit 3: Secondary Data Review
GB541 Unit 3 questions, answered
Is multiplying likelihood by impact the only acceptable method?
No, though it is the most common in GB541 registers. Some sections prefer adding the two scores or using a matrix with named zones. The register here multiplies and then admits the method's weakness: a rare severe exposure and a frequent minor one can share a product. Use whatever your rubric names, and say in a sentence why the method fits the organization.
How many exposures should the register hold?
Enough to force choices, which usually means eight to twelve. Fewer leaves little to rank; many more and the commentary cannot treat the leaders properly. Ten rows here let five reach the treatment threshold while the other five are argued down to monitoring. Check whether your instructions set a minimum, and whether they want exposures drawn from earlier units.
Where can I find a free GB541 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB541 Unit 3 risk register ranking ten employment exposures at a composite veterinary group on defined five-point scales, with commentary and APA 7 references.
Why do the Illinois timeclocks rank first?
About 310 employees clock in by fingerprint without written consent, and Illinois gives employees a private right of action with liquidated damages. Likelihood 4 times impact 4 gives 16, the highest score.
What happens to the exposures that score below twelve?
They are fixed through routine work or monitored rather than sent to the treatment plan. The pay clause and pay history question, for example, are handled in the Unit 4 policy memo.