Kinesiology - Sports Administration and Management You are a student-athlete on a basketball scholarship at a major university, and you are the team's star player. You've been doing so well, a booster approaches you at a promotional event and extends their hand for what appears to be a handshake, but, you notice that the booster has $1000 in their hand. The booster tells you "earned it" with your fantastic play, and to go buy yourself something nice. Are you able to accept the money? Why or why not?
No, I am not able to accept the money. Under the NCAA's rules and bylaws, student-athletes cannot accept gifts (monetary or otherwise) in exchange for their performance on the field, because of the principle of "amateurism." Hence, if I were to accept the gift, I would no longer be an "amateur," and would be disqualified from competition. As a student-athlete on full athletic scholarship, I am only entitled to tuition, room and board, books, and university fee costs, per the NCAA's rules and bylaws. While schools are entitled to provide me with more than what's covered by a full athletic scholarship, which can be in the form of a stipend for the additional costs of living in the surrounding area of the school, they are not required to do so at this time. Therefore, even if the NCAA and its member schools are collecting billions of dollars off the labor of the student-athletes, I still cannot accept the gift from the donor.
One day, a client walks into your office, and asks to speak to you in order to determine if she has a claim (or claims) against her employer. The woman is in her mid-30's, and has worked as an assembly line worker at a large, local manufacturer for the last ten years, and has enjoyed her job over that time period, except for the last year. She states that, approximately one year ago, she was diagnosed with Type-1 diabetes, and was forced to wear an insulin pump to regulate her glucose levels, while being required to maintain a strict rest schedule to ensure she could live a normal life. At the same time, the manufacturer implemented a new work schedule in three of the six building of the appliance park, and her building was one of the three. In the six months following her diagnosis, as well as, the implementation of the new schedule, the woman has not been able to regulate her glucose levels, or able get proper rest, because the new schedule is irregular, and she works at different times every day and week. She states she would have been able to regulate her glucose levels and get the proper amount of rest if the manufacturer had not changed her schedule. As a result of the irregular hours, she developed complications from her Type-1 diabetes, including neuropathy in her feet. In order to mitigate the existing damage, and prevent exacerbation of her condition in the future, her physician informed her that she would have to return to her previous schedule, seek another position at the manufacturer, or find new employment. Therefore, after her visit with the physician, and in order to accommodate her Type-1 diabetes, the woman visited the human resources department of the manufacturer to submit the necessary documentation from her physician to obtain an accommodation for her Type-1 diabetes. She submitted the documentation, and spoke with an employee to request she be allowed to fill a vacate position in one of the other three buildings in the appliance park with the old schedule, or transfer to a different position away from the assembly line that did not require as much physical exertion. Despite having multiple vacant positions in the buildings with the old schedule and away from the assembly line, the employee in HR denied her request, and stated that the woman would "...just have to figure out a way to deal with it, or quit." Hoping this was just a mistake, the woman obtained the contact information for the HR director, and sent the accommodation documents to the director, and requested a meeting to discuss the matter with the director. The next day, the woman received an email from the director stating that no mistake had been made, her accommodation request had been denied, and she would need to find a way to work in her current position, or resign from the manufacturer. Not wanting to lose her livelihood, the woman has worked in her regular position for the last six months, and her conditions have deteriorated to the point that she may be forced to resign from the manufacturer. She asks you if she has any claims against the employer as a result of its failure to accommodate her Type-1 diabetes. Identify any claim (or claims) the woman may have, and explain in detail whether the claim (or claims) has merit.
The woman has a viable disability discrimination claim against the manufacturer under a failure-to-accommodate theory. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (and subsequent amendments, it is unlawful for an employer, as defined in the ADA, to fail to provide an accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability upon request, unless accommodating the disability would impose an undue financial hardship on the employer. In this light, courts have adopted a modified version of the well-known McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework. First, a plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case of disability discrimination by submitting sufficient evidence into the record to establish each element of the claim. In order establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under a failure-to-accommodate theory, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is disabled as the term is defined in the ADA, (2) she is “otherwise qualified” for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) the employer knew or had reason to know about his disability; (4) she requested an accommodation; and (5) the employer failed to provide the accommodation. Next, If a plaintiff meets their prima facie burden, the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to prove (by preponderance of the evidence) that the accommodation would have imposed an undue financial hardship on the employer. If the employer is unable to prove undue hardship, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Here, a disability discrimination claim under a failure-to-accommodate theory should be filed on the woman's behalf. First, the woman has a "disability" as the term is defined in the ADA. Under the ADA, "disability" is defined as, inter alia, "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual." "Major life activities" include, but are not limited to, working and major bodily functions. In this case, the woman's Type-1 diabetes substantially limits her ability to work, as her condition has deteriorated to the point that she will either have to resign from her position, or possibly suffer life threatening complications from her condition. Moreover, considering Type-1 diabetes affects the normal functioning of endocrine system of the body, one of the woman's major bodily functions is affected by her condition. Hence, she is disabled under the ADA. Second, the woman is "otherwise qualified" for her position, with or without an accommodation. This element is satisfied because she possesses the objective qualifications for the position, and was able to perform the job's essential functions even after the onset of her Type-1 diabetes. Further, nothing in the facts suggest she has any form of disciplinary history at work. Therefore, she will be able to satisfy the second element. Third, in light of the fact that the woman spoke with multiple employees in HR, including the director, about her Type-1 diabetes, the manufacturer is aware of her disability. Fourth, considering the woman submitted all the necessary documentation to obtain an accommodation for her Type-1 diabetes to HR on multiple occasions, the woman clearly requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Finally, the woman's requests were obviously denied by the manufacturer, as she is still working in her regular position six months after making the requests for a reasonable accommodation. Thus, the woman will be able to satisfy each element of her prima facie case. Moreover, the manufacturer will be unable to demonstrate any undue financial hardship from having to accommodate the woman's disability. As discussed in the facts, above, there were vacant positions in the building with the old schedule, and positions away from the assembly line, the woman could have filled immediately if given the opportunity. Instead, the manufacturer refused her requests, and told her to just, "...figure it out." Because the woman can demonstrate a prima facie case, and the manufacturer will be unable to show undue hardship, the woman will be successful if she pursues a disability discrimination claim against her employer.
Organization Theory and Design: Identify the five basic parts of an organization, and how they fit together to perform needed functions. If the organization had to give up one of these parts, such as during a severe downsizing, which one could it survive the longest without? Discuss.
The five basic parts of an organization are top management, middle management, administrative support staff, technical support staff, and the technical core. In real life organizations, the five pars are interrelated and often serve more than one function. For example, managers coordinate and direct parts of the organization, but they may also be involved in administrative and technical support. Finally, efficient and learning organization have shifted from the traditional vertical hierarchy, where activities were grouped by common work, to a horizontal structure, in which self-directed teams are the fundamental work unit. Therefore, in today's business environment, if a severe downsizing were to occur, top management is the part the organization could survive the longest without, because, simply, top managers are no longer needed in horizontal organizations.