| Course | HA530 Human Resources for Health Care Managers |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Employment law case |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Health Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA530 Unit 2
Two Requests, Two Statutes, One Schedule: An Employment Law Case at a Composite Health System Where a Respiratory Therapist Asks for Sabbath Shifts Off and a Pregnant Labor and Delivery Nurse Asks to Stop Lifting and Taking Call
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA530: Human Resources for Health Care Managers
Unit 2 Employment Law Case
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The system, the employees and every detail are composite; the analysis is coursework simplified for a course and is not legal advice.
The Facts
Respiratory therapy: a full-time therapist who recently joined a faith that observes a Saturday Sabbath asks to be excused from shifts between Friday sunset and Saturday sunset. The department rotates every therapist through one weekend in three. Covering her Friday nights and Saturdays would require shift swaps or about [$9,400] a year in overtime. Labor and delivery: a nurse in her second trimester presents a note from her clinician limiting lifting to [25] pounds and recommending she not work overnight call shifts after [28] weeks. Labor and delivery nurses help reposition patients and take call two nights a month.
Request 1: Religious Accommodation
Rule: the federal employment discrimination statute defines religion to include observance and practice, and an employer must accommodate them reasonably, with an exception only where the accommodation would place an undue hardship on its business (42 U.S.C. § 2000e, 2024). In 2023 the Supreme Court rejected the old view that any cost beyond a trifling one is enough; an employer must now show that the accommodation would bring substantially increased costs, judged against its own size, operations and expenses (Groff v. DeJoy, 2023). Application: [$9,400] a year in overtime, in a system with a respiratory therapy budget of [$6.2] million, is unlikely to be a substantial burden. Voluntary swaps with colleagues, a fixed Sunday rotation in place of Saturdays and adjusting the weekend rotation are all available. Coworker grumbling about the change is not, by itself, undue hardship. Conclusion: the hospital should grant the accommodation, most likely by moving her weekend rotation to Sundays and Friday day shifts. After the 2023 decision, the question is no longer whether an accommodation costs anything, but whether the cost is substantial for a business of this size.
Request 2: Pregnancy Accommodation
Rule: The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires covered employers to accommodate known limitations arising from pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions, again subject to an undue hardship exception (42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-1, 2024). Forced leave is barred when some other workable accommodation exists, and the employer is expected to talk the options through with the employee. The implementing regulations describe temporary suspension of an essential function as a possible accommodation when the employee can perform it again in the near future (29 C.F.R. § 1636.3, 2024). Application: the lifting limit can be met by assigning lift-assist duties to colleagues and using mechanical lifts, which the unit already has. Suspending overnight call for about [12] weeks, with call redistributed among [26] nurses, adds about one call night every [three] months to each. Neither appears to be an undue hardship. Placing her on leave would not be appropriate while these accommodations are available. Conclusion: grant both accommodations, documented, with a review date after delivery.
Where the Two Interact
Both requests affect weekend and night coverage. Granting both reduces the pool for those shifts slightly in two departments. The fairness question for coworkers is real, but the law treats each request on its own terms; managers should spread the added load transparently and avoid revealing the reasons for either accommodation.
What the Employees Said
The therapist said she would trade any number of Sunday or holiday shifts and had already found two colleagues willing to swap. The nurse said she wanted to keep working through her pregnancy and asked only that call and heavy lifting stop for a time. Both offered solutions, which made the interactive process short.
What the Managers Were Tempted to Do
The respiratory therapy manager's first response was that everyone must work weekends equally, and that one exception would invite others. The labor and delivery manager's first thought was to move the nurse to a clinic role off the unit. Both responses would have created legal risk: the first by treating any cost as hardship, the second by imposing a change the nurse did not need.
Process
1. Acknowledge each request in writing within [two] business days.
2. Meet with each employee to discuss options.
3. Document the accommodations, the alternatives considered and any costs.
4. Keep medical and religious information confidential and separate from the personnel file.
5. Review the pregnancy accommodation after the employee's return.
Risks if Handled Poorly
Denying the Sabbath request on cost grounds alone could expose the hospital to a religious discrimination charge. Requiring the nurse to take unpaid leave could violate the pregnancy statute. Telling coworkers why schedules changed could create privacy and harassment concerns.
Limits
State laws may provide additional protections. The analysis does not consider collective bargaining agreements, which may affect scheduling.
Conclusion
Two requests on one schedule follow two statutes with different tests. In both, reasonable accommodations are available at modest cost, and the law favors granting them through a documented, interactive process.
References
29 C.F.R. § 1636.3 (2024). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/section-1636.3
Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023).
42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2024). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e
42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-1 (2024). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000gg-1
The Purdue Global HA530 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 usually asks students to analyze an employment law issue in a health care setting, often involving discrimination, accommodation or leave. Instructions commonly require stating the facts, identifying the applicable law, applying it, recommending a course of action and describing the process a manager should follow. Many instructors want students to note when different laws apply to similar requests. Expect to cite statutes, regulations and leading court decisions in APA style, keep employees composite, state plainly that the paper is coursework and not legal advice, and keep private medical and religious details out of the narrative. Applying each request to its own legal test, rather than blending them, shows the precision employment law requires and avoids the most common error in these cases.
How the HA 530 Unit 2 example is put together
The sample states the facts for both requests, with a margin note on keeping them separate. The religious request is tested under Title VII and the Supreme Court's 2023 undue hardship standard, and the highlighted sentence explains the shift from trivial cost to substantial burden. The pregnancy request is tested under the federal statute and its regulations on temporarily suspending an essential function, with a margin note on reaching conclusions under each test. What the employees proposed carries a third note, followed by what the managers were tempted to do, how the requests interact on the schedule, a five-step process from acknowledgment to review, the risks of handling either request poorly, limits such as state law and a conclusion.
Where the points sit in the HA530 Unit 2 rubric
Employment law rubrics in HA 530 tend to give points for stating facts, identifying the correct law, applying the legal test accurately, reaching a supported conclusion, describing a compliant process, citing sources and writing clearly. Law points depend on choosing the statute that governs each request. Application points go to testing the facts against the statute's elements, such as undue hardship. Conclusion points reward a decision tied to the test. Process points require steps such as acknowledgment, interactive discussion, documentation and confidentiality. Source points need statutes, regulations and case law. Cases that note how recent decisions or new laws changed the analysis often earn the highest marks.
Common HA530 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Employment law papers often lose points by applying one legal standard to every accommodation request, such as treating a religious request as a disability one. Another gap is relying on outdated standards, such as the old view that any cost beyond a trivial one is undue hardship. Some papers recommend leave when another accommodation would work. Others share employees' private reasons with coworkers. Identify the statute for each request, apply its test to the facts, consider several accommodations and document the interactive process. Then explain how to spread any added workload fairly without revealing why schedules changed, and set a date to review any temporary accommodation.
Get an HA530 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Paste the Unit 2 scenario as assigned along with the rubric, and note which laws or decisions the instructions name. Each legal question gets its own framework, applied element by element to the facts supplied, and the analysis is back within 24-48h. A first custom sample is free; its facts stay invented and it decides no real employee's request. 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 HA530 papers and MHA samples
- HA530 Unit 1: HR Shared Services Discussion Post
- HA530 Unit 3: Healthcare Job Analysis
- HA530 Unit 4: Recruitment and Selection Plan
- HA530 Unit 5: Training Program Design
- HA530 Unit 6: Performance Appraisal Documentation
- HA530 Unit 7: Compensation Analysis
- HA530 Unit 8: Labor Relations Case
- HA530 Unit 9: Retention Strategy Paper
- HA530 Unit 10: Human Resources Capstone Deliverable
- HA520 Unit 2: Hospital Financial Statement Analysis
- HA540 Unit 5:
- HA515 Unit 2: Leadership Theory Comparison
- HA510 Unit 2: Hospital Structure Comparison
HA530 Unit 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA530 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries the full HA530 Unit 2 employment law case on a Sabbath request and a pregnancy accommodation at a composite health system, drawing on four legal sources. Any accommodation request can be taken through its own test the same way.
How did the 2023 Supreme Court decision change the HA530 Unit 2 analysis?
It requires the hospital to show substantial added costs relative to its business before refusing a religious accommodation, so modest overtime is not enough.
Which statute governs the nurse's request in HA530 Unit 2?
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which covers temporary limits arising from pregnancy and allows suspending an essential function for a time.
Why was leave not the answer for the HA530 Unit 2 nurse?
Because reassigning lifting tasks and pausing call would let her keep working, and the statute bars forced leave when such options exist.
How long is the HA530 Unit 2 case?
About five pages taking each request through its own legal framework.