Week 2 Case Questions
Week 2 Case Questions
Select TWO court cases (from different chapters) from the list below, and respond in writing to the case questions.
NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue (Ch 4, p 113
Ketchikan Drywall Services v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ch 5, p. 176)
The requirements below must be met for your paper to be accepted and graded:
Write between 750 – 1,250 words (approximately 3 – 5 pages) using Microsoft Word in APA style, see example below.
Use font size 12 and 1” margins.
Include cover page and reference page.
At least 80% of your paper must be original content/writing.
No more than 20% of your content/information may come from references.
Use at least three references from outside the course material, one reference must be from EBSCOhost. Text book, lectures, and other materials in the course may be used, but are not counted toward the three reference requirement.
Cite all reference material (data, dates, graphs, quotes, paraphrased words, values, etc.) in the paper and list on a reference page in APA style.
References must come from sources such as, scholarly journals found in EBSCOhost, CNN, online newspapers such as, The Wall Street Journal, government websites, etc. Sources such as, Wikis, Yahoo Answers, eHow, blogs, etc. are not acceptable for academic writing.
A detailed explanation of how to cite a source using APA can be found here (link).
Download an example here
Grading Criteria Assignments Maximum Points
Meets or exceeds established assignment criteria 40
Demonstrates an understanding of lesson concepts 20
Clearly presents well-reasoned ideas and concepts 30
Uses proper mechanics, punctuation, sentence structure, and spelling 10
Total 100
Solution Preview
Case Number One
The legal issues in the case are first whether the court erred in finding that the residency requirement of North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue was disparate impact discrimination on African Americans. Secondly, another legal issue was whether the court erred in finding that the business necessity did not justify the residency requirement. The court was looking at whether the regulations on residency and employment were discriminatory contrary to the labour laws in place.
(1,072 words)