Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Howard v Ohio Children′s Hospital
Tonya Howard, an African American registered n
Howard v Ohio Children′s Hospital
Tonya Howard, an African American registered nurse, had worked in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at Ohio Children′s Hospital for more than 25 years. While providing routine care of a sick baby, a man approached her and told her he was the father of that baby. The Caucasian man then rolled up his sleeve to reveal a large swastika tattooed on his right forearm. Following hospital protocol, Tonya asked to see his identification band, which was issued by the hospital and required to visit the NICU. Scowling, the father showed her his ID band and told Tonya not to touch his baby again. He then asked to speak to her supervisor.
After the father spoke with the charge nurse, the hospital posted a note in the baby’s file that read “No African American nurse to take care of this baby” and reassigned other (and only white) nurses to care for the baby. The director of nurses had made the decision to comply with the father′s request so that the baby would receive required medical care, as the father had threatened to remove the child from the hospital against medical advice that the child needed care that could only be provided by a NICU. The hospital administration also argued that complying with the request would also protect Tonya and other black nurses in the NICU from contact with the father.
Tonya and the other African American nurses working in the NICU objected and filed a complaint with Human Resources. Two days later, the hospital removed the note but did not assign any black nurses to care for the child for the next month while the infant remained in the NICU, despite notice from the hospital’s legal department that the ICU should not honor the father’s request.
Tonya has sued for race discrimination and seeks damages for emotional distress, humiliation, mental anguish, and damage to her reputation.
Instructions: Using the FIRAC model, analyze Tonya′s Title VII claim against the hospital. Don′t forget to address any responses or defenses the hospital may assert in response to Tonya′s claims.
*Rubric
Criteria
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Poor
Fail
Criterion Score
FACTS
10 points
Accurate, concise and well written summary of all material facts necessary to analyze the scenario. Written in your own words without heavily relying on the wording of the facts in the scenario.
8 points
Most material facts are mentioned, but the statement repeated too much from the prompt and/or missed facts that were mentioned later in the analysis (application section).
6 points
The facts of the case are summarized, but the student did not detail many of the facts that are later used in the application (e.g. analysis of how the rules apply to the facts).
4 points
Facts stated are too general and vague to demonstrate that the student actually viewed and understood the content.
0 points
Paper did not have a statement of facts or missed material facts that change the analysis.
Score of FACTS,/ 10
ISSUE(S)
10 points
Accurate, well written issue statement that correctly spots the legal issue(s) within the assignment AND incorporates some of the material facts.
9 points
Well written issue statement, and attempted to incorporate many of the material facts.
7 points
Issue statement is present but misses some aspect of the issue or does not correctly identify the legal issue(s).
5 points
Issue statement is present, but is too vague or broad to correctly identify a particular legal issue
0 points
Issue statement is not present.
Score of ISSUE(S),/ 10
RULE(S)
25 points
Correctly identifies and explains the appropriate legal rule(s), any exceptions, and subparts.
20 points
Correct statement of rule(s), but also discusses legal rules that are not necessary to resolving the issue.
15 points
Rule statement is present but omits important exceptions or subparts of the rule OR if there are two legal rules, only explains one and/or lists its elements, not both.
10 points
Rule statement is present but is incorrect or too vague to be correctly applied to the facts of the scenario.
0 points
Rule statement is not present or is directly contrary to the actual rule.
Score of RULE(S),/ 25
APPLICATION(S)
30 points
Comprehensive and clear analysis of ALL the relevant legal rules and their application to the facts to support logical arguments about how the issue(s) will be resolved.
25 points
Applies most of the relevant rule(s), including exceptions and subparts to the facts, but overlooks one or more important aspect of the rule(s).
20 points
Applies the rules to the facts of the scenario, but misses or misstates the relationship between the rule and the facts so that the arguments aren′t clear or are incomplete.
10 points
Analysis is present but does not offer a relationship between the rule and the facts or is too vague to arrive at any meaningful resolution.
0 points
Analysis is not present or is so removed from the stated rules or facts as to not be useful
Score of APPLICATION(S),/ 30
CONCLUSION(S)
5 points
Succinct, well written conclusion that explicitly addresses the issue and indicates reasons (from analysis) that make this conclusion seem inevitable.
4 points
Generally well written and supported by the analysis, but does not state a clear and decisive resolution of the pertinent issues.
3 points
Has a clear relationship to the issue and the analysis but misses important considerations or does not follow from the arguments presented.
2 points
Conclusion is present but does not have a clear relationship to the preceding analysis or seems partially contrary to that analysis.
0 points
Conclusion is not present or so deviates from the analysis as to not be meaningful.
Score of CONCLUSION(S),/ 5
WRITING: Style and Conventions
15 points
Student followed all instructions re double-spacing, etc and included word count at end. Quality writing in narrative form, using paragraphs and complete sentences (not bulleted lists), Contains correct grammar and spelling. Style is readable, sentences are easily understood, and writing adds to the overall quality of the paper.
13 points
Quality writing in narrative form, using paragraphs and complete sentences (not bulleted lists), Contains correct grammar and spelling. Style is readable, sentences are easily understood, and writing adds to the overall quality of the paper, but student didn′t double-space paper, use appropriate paragaphs, and/or include word count at end (e.g., didn′t follow instructions).
12 points
Clear writing and readable style, but writing doesn′t enhance the quality of the paper and/or there are some grammatical or spelling errors present that careful proofreading should have detected.
10 points
No significant grammatical or spelling errors but lacked quality writing, organization and/or style, which made it more difficult to follow and understand OR had appropriate style, but detracting grammatical or spelling errors.
5 points
Awkward syntax, inappropriate word usage, and/or significant grammatical and spelling errors made the writing difficult to understand.
Score of WRITING: Style and Conventions,/ 15
WRITING: Organization (follows the FIRAC model)
5 points
Properly used FIRAC headings to craft an essay that followed the model.
4 points
Mostly followed FIRAC, but didn′t follow headings and introduced facts in the application section that were not present in the fact section.
3 points
Mostly followed FIRAC, but tended to blend rules and application (or other sections) which would make it harder for the reader to understand.
2 points
Didn′t follow FIRAC consistently, but bounced between facts and issues, or rules and applications, or blended multiple sections etc.
0 points
It was difficult to tell from the essay whether the author made any attempt to use FIRAC to organize the paper …
Score of WRITING: Organization (follows the FIRAC model),/ 5
Extra-Credit
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Poor
Fail
Criterion Score
Extra-Credit Analysis based on change in facts.
10 points
Notes change in facts and correctly identifies and explains any changes to rule(s) and conclusion.
8 points
Notes change in facts, identifies change in rule but without discussion of rule in either EC or paper.
6 points
States new conclusion, but analysis is less thorough than an excellent or good response.
4 points
Notes change in facts and rules, but conclusion doesn′t follow from analysis.
0 points
Didn′t attempt EC.
Score of Extra-Credit Analysis based on change in facts.,/ 10
Total
Score of Scoring Rubric for FIRAC (headings allowed; has EC option),/ 110
*It′s a FIRAC Paper
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.