| Course | MT203 Human Resource Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Employment law brief |
| Length | About 630 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT203 Unit 5
A Six-Year-Old Theft Conviction and a Gate Code: A Unit 5 Employment Law Brief
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT203: Human Resource Management
Unit 5 Employment Law Brief
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Bluebonnet Pool Care, the applicant and every fact are composite and illustrative; this brief is a course exercise, not legal advice; the sources cited are real.
Question Presented
May Bluebonnet Pool Care withdraw a conditional offer to a service technician applicant because of a single misdemeanor theft conviction six years old, and if it does, what process must it follow?
Facts
On February 10, Bluebonnet made a conditional offer to Luis R. for a service technician position, subject to a background check. He had worked two seasons at another pool company, which gave a strong reference. On February 14, the background screening company reported a misdemeanor theft conviction from six years earlier, when Luis was nineteen, for shoplifting about [$180] of merchandise. He completed probation. No other record appears. Technicians at Bluebonnet receive gate codes and lockbox combinations for about [65] homes, though they rarely enter the houses.
Rules
Two bodies of rules apply. The first governs process. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (2018), an employer buying a screening report from an outside agency must first give the applicant a standalone written disclosure and obtain written authorization. Before taking adverse action based on the report, it must hand over the report itself along with the federal summary of consumer rights, then allow a reasonable period for the applicant to respond. If it proceeds, it must send a final adverse action notice.
The second governs substance. Federal guidance on conviction records (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2012) explains that a blanket exclusion of applicants with any conviction can have a disparate impact on applicants by race and national origin under Title VII. It asks employers to look at what the crime involved, how much time has gone by and what this particular job requires, a three-part test the agency took from Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. (1977), and to give the applicant an individualized assessment, including a chance to explain.
Application
On process, Bluebonnet's screening vendor collected a signed authorization, but it was printed on the same page as the employment application, which may not meet the standalone disclosure requirement. No pre-adverse action notice has been sent yet, so the company has not violated the notice rule, but it would if it withdrew the offer today.
On substance, the factors point toward hiring. The offense was a minor property crime with no violence. Six years have gone by with nothing further on his record, which is a long period for someone who was nineteen. The job does involve access to customers' yards and gate codes, which makes theft relevant, but technicians work outside and rarely enter homes, and Luis's two seasons at a similar company passed without complaint. Under the individualized assessment the guidance describes, the company would ask Luis about the conviction and consider his reference and work history.
The conviction is relevant to a job with gate codes; six clean years and two clean seasons are relevant too.
Recommendation and Policy Changes
Bluebonnet should keep the offer in place after a short conversation with Luis about the conviction. It should also make four changes. First, remove "no convictions, no exceptions" from the application, since a blanket rule invites a disparate impact claim. Second, use a standalone disclosure form for background checks. Third, adopt a written individualized assessment that records the offense, how many years have passed since it and the duties of the position applied for. Fourth, create a pre-adverse action notice template with a five-business-day response period, so that any future withdrawal follows the required steps.
References
Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681b (2018).
Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 549 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1977).
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2012). Enforcement guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-consideration-arrest-and-conviction-records-employment-decisions
MT203 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
The fifth unit usually asks for a short legal brief on one employment decision, applying federal law to a set of facts. Most prompts follow a standard structure: the question presented, the relevant facts, the governing rules, the application of the rules to the facts, and a recommendation. Background checks, discrimination, leave and wage questions are common topics. State the question narrowly, about one decision, so the analysis can be specific. The rules section should cite the statute, regulation or agency guidance directly, and the application should work through each element using the case's facts. Many sections also ask what the employer should change in its policies. This is a course exercise, so the recommendation should show reasoning rather than legal certainty. Three to four pages is typical, with legal sources cited in APA 7 or the format your instructor specifies.
How this MT203 Unit 5 example is built
The brief begins with a one-sentence question about withdrawing the offer and the process required. The facts give dates, the conviction details, completed probation, a strong reference from another pool company and the gate code access. The rules section has two parts: the Fair Credit Reporting Act's disclosure, authorization and notice steps, and the EEOC guidance on blanket exclusions and individualized assessment, with the Green factors. A margin note explains why process and substance are kept apart. The application finds a likely problem with the disclosure printed on the application form and walks through each Green factor using the applicant's own history, and a second note marks that step. The highlighted line sets the gate codes beside the six clean years. The recommendation keeps the offer after a conversation and lists four changes, from removing the no-exceptions line to a five-day response period.
MT203 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
Briefs are generally graded on structure, accuracy and application. Each section should do its own job: the question should be answerable, the facts relevant and dated, and the rules stated correctly with citations. Most of the marks sit in the application, where the writer must connect each rule to specific facts rather than restate the rule. Separating procedural requirements from substantive standards shows an understanding that an employer can fail either one. A recommendation that follows from the analysis, and policy changes that fix the gaps found, demonstrate practical judgment. Accuracy matters a great deal, since misstating a notice requirement or a guidance factor costs points quickly. The FCRA, the EEOC guidance and the Green decision should each appear in the reference list in the format your section uses, and the brief should avoid presenting itself as legal advice.
Common MT203 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Employment law briefs often lose points by summarizing the law in general and never applying it to the facts. Another frequent issue is a question so broad, such as whether background checks are legal, that the brief cannot answer it. Some writers mix process and substance, so the reader cannot tell which requirement the employer missed. Others treat agency guidance as if it were a statute, or a statute as if it covered every state. Recommendations sometimes contradict the analysis, for example withdrawing an offer after finding every factor favors the applicant. Watch citations too, since legal sources need a different format from journal articles. If your case involves a state law, check whether the prompt wants it addressed. Bring the facts and the decision your prompt describes, and a writer can draft the question presented, then test each FCRA step and guidance factor against those facts.
Get an MT203 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Hiring decisions with a legal knot in them make the strongest briefs, so describe the decision the Unit 5 prompt poses, or one witnessed at work with names removed, and include the rubric. In 24-48h a brief returns applying one obligation to that decision and listing the policy changes it forces. First samples cost nothing. 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 MT203 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT203 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT203 Unit 2: Job Analysis
- MT203 Unit 3: Recruitment Plan
- MT203 Unit 4: Selection Method Comparison
- MT203 Unit 6: Training Needs Assessment
- MT203 Unit 7: Performance Appraisal Exercise
- MT203 Unit 8: Compensation Analysis
- MT203 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- MT203 Unit 10: Human Resources Case Analysis
- MT202 Unit 5: Objection Handling Script
- MT140 Unit 5: Staffing Case Analysis
- MT106 Unit 5: Career Research Summary
- MT102 Unit 5: Pricing Exercise
MT203 Unit 5 questions, answered
Why does the brief rely on EEOC guidance rather than a statute?
Title VII contains no rule about conviction records, but the EEOC's 2012 enforcement guidance explains how blanket exclusions can produce disparate impact and how an individualized assessment reduces that risk. The example cites it as the agency's position, not as binding law. Where a state or city has a fair chance statute, that law may be stricter, and the brief flags it for local review.
What is a pre-adverse action notice?
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, an employer that may act against an applicant based on a background report must first give the applicant a copy of the report and a summary of their rights, then allow time to respond before deciding. The example drafts both letters. A few business days is a common waiting period in practice, though the statute sets no number.
Where can I find a free MT203 Unit 5 sample paper?
A complete MT203 Unit 5 employment law brief appears on this page. It applies the Fair Credit Reporting Act and EEOC conviction-record guidance to one technician applicant, recommends keeping the offer, lists policy changes and includes margin notes.
Why is the company's background check disclosure a problem?
It was printed on the employment application itself. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires a standalone disclosure before a background report is obtained, so the brief recommends a separate one-page form for every future applicant.
Does the brief say the company must hire anyone with a conviction?
No. It recommends keeping this offer because the offense was minor and old and the applicant's work history was clean. A recent, serious or job-related offense could lead to a different result under the same assessment.