Passed over at 58 for a 34-year-old outsider: HR420's Unit 3 claim analysis tests a composite night auditor's age case element by element, but-for causation included. Searches like "hr 420 unit 3 assignment example", "hr420 unit 3 sample" and "hr420 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished HR420 Unit 3 discrimination claim analysis looks like
Five pages arranged around the burden-shifting framework courts use for circumstantial discrimination claims, adapted to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A threshold paragraph confirms coverage: the hotel group employs more than twenty people, and the auditor is over forty. The prima facie case follows element by element, with qualification treated as contested because the posting asked for two years of supervisory experience and the auditor directed one houseperson. The replacement, twenty-four years younger, meets the fourth element; under O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers what matters is a substantially younger replacement, not one under forty. The employer's stated reason, the outside candidate's revenue-system certification, is set out fairly. The pretext section weighs the runway remark and asks whether that certification was ever required before. The but-for standard closes it.
How a HR420 Unit 3 example is structured
The order is the order of proof. Coverage and timeliness come first, including the charge-filing window, which runs 180 days or 300 in states with their own enforcement agency, so a reader knows the claim is live before analysis begins. The four prima facie elements are then taken separately, each with the supporting fact and any fact cutting against it. The employer's explanation receives its own section written without sarcasm, since the analysis is only persuasive if the reason is stated at full strength. Pretext follows, built from three kinds of evidence: the remark, its timing inside the decision and the consistency with which the certification requirement had been applied to earlier hires. The final section applies Gross v. FBL Financial Services, which requires age to be the but-for cause, and lists the facts still unknown to anyone reading the file.
Coverage and the filing window
Headcount over twenty, the auditor over forty and a charge still inside the filing period, each confirmed before any element is argued.
Qualified, or close enough?
The supervisory requirement set against eleven years of solo overnight responsibility and one houseperson directed, with the posting's own wording quoted.
A reason stated at full strength
The outside candidate's certification and prior assistant manager title presented as the hotel would present them, without editorial comment.
Long runway, in context
The phrase examined for meaning, speaker and timing, since a remark by the decision-maker inside the decision weighs more than one overheard in a hallway.
But-for, and what is missing
Age as the decisive cause rather than one factor among several, then the three records that would settle it: prior postings, other applicants' ages and the scoring notes.
Where marks go in HR420 Unit 3
Most lost ground comes from treating a remark as the whole case. The runway comment matters, but an analysis that jumps from it to liability skips the elements the unit exists to test. Many sections expect each prima facie element stated separately with its fact. A second loss is applying a Title VII mixed-motive standard to an age claim; the Supreme Court held in Gross that age must be the but-for cause, and papers that miss this misstate the burden. Qualification deserves more than a sentence when the posting's requirement is arguable. Papers that dismiss the employer's reason as obviously false read as advocacy. Thresholds skipped, the twenty-employee coverage rule or the filing window, also cost marks, as does a conclusion that never admits what remains unknown.
Get a HR420 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Every discrimination analysis depends on who did what and when, so the scenario assigned for Unit 3 matters more than any summary of it. Attach it with the rubric. The worked sample returns within 24-48h, elements separated and the burden stated correctly for the statute involved, and nothing is charged for a first one.
HR420 Unit 3 questions, answered
Why does the example rely on Gross v. FBL Financial Services?
Because it sets the causation standard for age claims. The Supreme Court held in 2009 that a plaintiff under the ADEA must prove age was the but-for cause of the decision, and that the mixed-motive framework available in some Title VII cases does not apply. Stating that correctly is one of the clearest signals of an accurate analysis.
Does the replacement have to be under forty?
No. In O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers, the Supreme Court held that the relevant question is whether the replacement was substantially younger, not whether that person fell outside the protected group. Twenty-four years is well beyond any gap courts have treated as insignificant. If your scenario involves a gap of only a few years, the analysis needs more care.
Can the analysis conclude the auditor would win?
It can say the facts support each element and that the pretext evidence is meaningful, but a responsible paper stops short of predicting an outcome. The example ends by naming three records that would move the answer either way. Your instructor may instead ask for a recommendation to the employer, which is a different question from who prevails.