In an increasingly competitive global environment, what do you think will be the role of the United States in the global market in the years to come? After reviewing the course resources and your research, consider the role will the United States play in emerging markets, globalization, poverty, conflict, and world trade? Select one and share with your classmates your thoughts and ideas as you look towards the future.

Complete Problems 6-37 and 7-38 in the textbook. Both of these problems should be completed using Word rather than Excel.Save your assignment as Lastname_FirstnameACC650_T4.docx.Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.You are required to submit this assignment to turnitinAPA

The Situation: Richard Betz, Regional Manager for KGW, decided last year to retire.He agreed to stay on until his replacement was selected.After posting internally and externally recruiting, the field was narrowed to five candidates based on resumes, references, and performance records.All were internal candidates at the level of Center Administrator.These five candidates were invited to interview: Douglas Kimbel Barbara Wills Marsha Wilner Carol Corey Richard Clark The candidates interviewed with Richard Betz and with the Director of HR, Douglas Gibson, both of whom met together to make the decision.Douglas Kimbel was chosen for the promotion. Barbara Wills brought a charge to the EEOC for failure to promote based on race and gender and received a right-to-sue letter.She is suing in this case as Plaintiff #1. Carol Corey brought a charge to the EEOC for failure to promote based on gender and received a right-to-sue letter.She is suing in this case as Plaintiff #2. Richard Clark brought a charge to the EEOC for failure to promote based on gender and received a right-to-sue letter.He is suing in this case as Plaintiff #3. All plaintiffs, witnesses, job descriptions, and other relevant data can be found in HR Aware in the KGW Database.Attached is testimony from some of the relevant parties’ depositions.Please review it with your group before you delve into the KGW database! From Douglas Kimbel’s deposition: I applied for the promotion, and I got it – and I deserve it!After a long and successful career, the time has come for my boss (Richard Betz) to retire from KGW.As KGW tradition has it, the retiring director sits with the Director of HR to conduct interviews for his or her replacement.Also according to tradition, it’s pretty much up to the retiring manager to pick his or her replacement; the Director of HR just rubber stamps the selection unless there’s a really big problem – and in all the years of KGW, the Director of HR has never overruled the retiring manager.So I was looking forward to Richard Betz picking me – he’s been talking about how I’ll have his job and he has been preparing me for years.I’ve put the work in – I deserve it – so what is the big deal? I’m a little upset that people are saying I didn’t deserve it and that the promotion was based on unfairness, but you know what?They’ll get over it. The interviews for this promotion seemed pretty straightforward – they were held with me, Richard Betz, and the Director of HR.The Director of HR never asked any questions and hardly said a word; Betz asked all the questions.He asked a lot of questions about how I’d handle this situation or that situation, and I talked about how you’d approach things – isn’t that what you were supposed to do in this interview? From the Deposition of Barbara Wills: I interviewed for the promotion but didn’t get it.The interview seemed pretty straightforward – it was held with Richard Betz and the Director of HR.The Director of HR never asked any questions and hardly said a word; Richard Betz asked all the questions.He asked a lot of questions about how I’d handle this situation or that situation, and also asked why I wanted the promotion.I don’t really remember any specific questions other than that.It seemed like a pretty fair interview, and I wasn’t sure when I left if I nailed it or failed it – it was hard to read Richard Betz’s expression but he seemed very friendly.He made a lot of jokes during the interview – about sports, about the weather, that kind of stuff.He is a kind of loud and outgoing friendly guy.The Director of HR seems very busy, but he paid attention during the interview and took a lot of notes. I kind of thought it was a long shot anyway, but I thought I’d go for it.I feel due for a promotion, but I never worked in the organization with Richard Betz’s team and am not entirely sure how things are done there.But I am a fast learner and I could have learned!And Douglas Kimbel is a jerk – everyone knows that he is.I’m surprised KGW would promote someone who is so self-centered and such a mean person to everyone.I’m not mad, but I would really like some feedback on how I could be a strong candidate next time a promotion opportunity comes around.I am 100% loyal to KGW. From the deposition of Carol Corey: I really wanted this promotion and I’m devastated I didn’t get it!I’ve been working diligently and long hours for KGW for many years now in the hopes of a promotion like this.And what makes it worse is that they gave it to Douglas Kimbel????He’s such a jerk!Everyone can’t stand him.He can’t be as good at his job as he says he is.He’s always talking about sports or guy stuff – and he’s always “yukking” it up with people higher up than he is.He’s a kiss-butt guy.All fluff and no substance.He never actually does anything – just talks about how great he is.Uck. The interview seemed pretty straightforward – it was held with Richard Betz and the Director of HR.The Director of HR never asked any questions and hardly said a word; Richard Betz asked all the questions.He asked a lot of questions about how I’d handle this situation or that situation, and also asked why you wanted the promotion.I don’t really remember any specific questions other than that.It seemed like a pretty fair interview, and I thought I had it for sure when I left -- Richard Betz seemed to really like me.This is the first time I met him.He made a lot of jokes during the interview – about sports, about the weather, that kind of stuff.He is a kind of loud and outgoing friendly guy.The Director of HR seemed very busy, but he paid attention during the interview and took a lot of notes. I’m not sure what I’m going to do about not getting the promotion.I just want to make sure the decision wasn’t gender biased or anything illegal.Then … I don’t know.Maybe it’s time for me to leave KGW if there’s no future for me there. From the Deposition of Richard Clark: Yeah, I interviewed for the promotion but didn’t get it.The interview seemed pretty straightforward – it was held with Richard Betz and the Director of HR.The Director of HR never asked any questions and hardly said a word; Richard Betz asked all the questions.He asked a lot of questions about how I’d handle this situation or that situation, and also asked why you wanted the promotion.I don’t really remember any specific questions other than that. It seemed like a pretty fair interview, and I thought when I left that I had a pretty good chance of actually having gotten it – it was hard to read Richard Betz’s expression but he seemed very friendly.He made a lot of jokes during the interview – about sports, about the weather, that kind of stuff.He is a kind of loud and outgoing friendly guy.One thing that was weird was he kept touching me and talking about how “we men need to stick together.”Not touching you in upsetting ways, but touching me whenever he’d talk about things.When he said, “This position needs a strong manly approach” he’d squeeze my biceps and say “Oh, no problem there, I see!”And when I walked in and when I left, he swatted me on the behind and said, “This guy looks like he’d make a great member of the team!” like a football coach would do. One time, when he talked about a situation where the leader needed to be all right with “getting his hands dirty” he ruffled my hair.It was weird, but hey – the guy’s retiring and after a career that ended at the top, the guy has the right to be kind of weird.No drama – I don’t think he meant anything by it.It’s not like I was offended by it or anything.It was just weird.He did all of that right in front of the Director of HR, after all.The Director of HR hardly said two words in the interview – he seemed very busy, but he paid attention during the interview and took a lot of notes. So I guess he picked Doug Kimbel.That’s kind of a bummer, because that guy is a true a**.He’s awful.If that’s the kind of person that KGW wants to be running the company at the top, maybe it’s time I left.I’m nothing like Doug Kimbel.I just want to be sure I was fairly considered – that I wasn’t illegally denied or anything like that.Then maybe it’s time for me to start looking for another position. From the deposition of KGW’s Director of HR: Richard Betz was retiring after a long and successful career with KGW.As KGW tradition has it, the retiring director sits with the Director of HR to conduct interviews for his or her replacement.I like this tradition; it allows for the continued success of the retiring manager’s team whom he or she is really invested in.Also according to tradition, it’s pretty much up to the retiring manager to pick his or her replacement; the Director of HR just rubber stamps the selection unless there’s a really big problem – and in all the years of KGW, the Director of HR has never overruled the retiring manager.This system has worked well in the past – who knows the job better than the person who just had it and is retiring after a successful career?Also, it takes a lot of the heat of decision making off of me, so I really don’t have to make any decisions on promotions in cases of retiring managers.I have enough to do!I sat in on all the interviews, but I let Richard Betz ask the questions.I took a lot of notes in case I needed them, but I threw them away after the selection was made. I thought for sure Richard Betz was going to choose Douglas Kimbel, as it seemed Betz had been grooming Kimbel for the position for a while now.However, in the interview, Betz had a really weird dynamic with Richard Clark and a few of the female candidates.Betz was the same as he always is – making sports talk, jokes, talking about the weather, emphasizing the importance of a team, etc.Betz is kind of a fun “jock” who views business success as very similar to sports success and uses sports metaphors all the time.But it seemed like he might be leaning toward Richard Clark … Clark is a much more proper, formal guy than Kimbel, but Clark answered all the situational questions with how he’d change things – how he’d do things differently from Betz!It seemed a risky strategy for the interview, as everyone around here knows it is the retiring manager that makes the promotion decision.Still, I figured Betz would make a good choice, and I think he did. From the deposition of Richard Betz: I am retiring!After a long and successful career, the time has come for me to retire from KGW.As KGW tradition has it, the retiring director sits with the Director of HR to conduct interviews for his or her replacement.I like this tradition; it allows for the continued success of your team whom you are really invested in.Also according to tradition, it’s pretty much up to the retiring manager to pick his or her replacement; the Director of HR just rubber stamps the selection unless there’s a really big problem – and in all the years of KGW, the Director of HR has never overruled the retiring manager.So I was looking forward to picking my replacement – and I had just the man in mind – Douglas Kimbel. I’ve been grooming Douglas since he came onto my team.He’s been my “right hand” ever since he was hired and I’ve shown him everything there is to know about this job.I gave everyone else a fair look – even the women – but you know what?Doug’s my guy, and he’s going to do a great job!_________________________________Legal Arguments: Part 1:Do all three:What THEORY of discrimination is the best theory for Barbara Wills to bring her Title VII discrimination claim under?What THEORY of discrimination is the best theory for Carol Corey to bring her Title VII discrimination claim under?What THEORY of discrimination is the best theory for Richard Clark to bring his Title VII discrimination claim under?Does Barbara Wills have to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit in court?If so, how is that accomplished?If not, why not?Does Carol Corey have to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit in court?If so, how is that accomplished?If not, why not?Does Richard Clark have to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit in court?If so, how is that accomplished?If not, why not?Can Barbara Wills get a jury trial if she wants one?If so, what types of things will the jury decide and what will types of things will the judge decide?Can Carol Corey Wills get a jury trial if she wants one?If so, what types of things will the jury decide and what will types of things will the judge decide?Can Richard Clark get a jury trial if he wants one?If so, what types of things will the jury decide and what will types of things will the judge decide?__________Pick ONE case to do these two questions for:What are the prima facie elements of Title VII racial discrimination in a failure to promote case?(Applies to Barbara Wills’ case)Generally, what are some useful defenses to a Title VII claim of race discrimination? (Applies to Barbara Wills’ case)(KGW might want to use one or more of these)What are the prima facie elements of Title VII gender discrimination in a failure to promote case?(Applies to Carol Corey’s case and Richard Clark’s case)Generally, what are some useful defenses to a Title VII claim of gender discrimination?(Applies to Carol Corey’s and Richard Clark’s case)(KGW might want to use one or more of these)___________Answer this for the case you’ve picked:Who bears the BURDEN of proof – the plaintiff, the defendant, or both in Barbara Wills’ case?Who bears the BURDEN of proof – the plaintiff, the defendant, or both in Carol Corey’s case?Who bears the BURDEN of proof – the plaintiff, the defendant, or both in Richard Clark’s case?_________Facts and Proof:Do the first two questions here, and then all the questions pertaining just to the case you’ve picked:What methods can you use during discovery to gather facts and proof with the power of the court behind you?(Hint:There are three main types, and you’ll find these in the Candyland video’s discussion of discovery in the litigation process)Based on the scenario, who was the decision maker for this promotion decision?What facts and/or proof do you want to know if you are Barbara Willis’ lawyer?If you are Carol Corey’s lawyer?If you are Richard Clark’s lawyer?If you are KGW’s lawyer in the Willis case?If you are KGW’s lawyer in the Corey case?If you are KGW’s lawyer in the Clark case? __________________________________________________________________________________Part 2: Making Your Case!First:You needs to pick ONE of the three cases to do this section for (not all three!).EVIDENCE GATHERING … remember what your Plaintiff is trying to prove and what your Defendant is likely to be arguing!Using information from the KGW database, what SPECIFIC and RELEVANT information can you find out about your chosen plaintiff?Using information from the KGW database, what SPECIFIC and RELEVANT information did you find out about Douglas Kimbel?Using the KGW database, what SPECIFIC and RELEVANT INFORMATION can you find out about the decision maker(s) for this promotion decision?Using information from the KGW database, list and describe three pieces of evidence that are helpful to your Plaintiff’s case (note this is proof, not argument).From the KGW database, list and describe three pieces of evidence that are helpful to Defendant KGW’s case in defending against your plaintiff’s case.If this were a jury trial, who is the finder of fact? In other words, who will decide which witnesses are credible, which proof is persuasive, and who has met their burdens of proof?If this were a jury trial, who is the finder of law?In other words, who will decide if there has been enough proof introduced to allow a finding that the prima facie elements have been met and if there has been enough proof for KGW to maintain certain legal defenses?As with all civil (not criminal) employment lawsuits, the STANDARD of proof (not burden of proof) is “preponderance of the evidence.”In other words, to win, the plaintiff needs just a little bit more proof on his/her side than KGW has on its side.Given this standard of proof, does your group think that your plaintiff will win his/her case?Why or why not?______________________________________________KGW Part III: (essay questions) (25 points) And, finally, four individual questions just for you – feel free to discuss these together as a group if time permits.You should put significant effort into the answers here – they are not short answers, but full essays. 1.Choose to decide to represent either the plaintiff or the company (KGW) as a lawyer on the Title VII claim.In a short paragraph, what would your closing argument look like to a jury?(Closing arguments typically sum up the evidence presented and tie it to argument to convince a jury member to vote your way.) (5 points) 2.As an HR professional who “speaks” law, why do you think your assigned plaintiff wasn’t chosen for the position and Douglas Kimbel was? (5 points) 3.Regardless of how these cases turn out, what should KGW do about these three employee’s claims from an HR perspective?Or should the company just leave it be and do nothing with regards to Barbara Wills, Carol Corey, and Richard Clark?Explain! (5 points) 4.From an HR perspective, what should KGW do in the future to avoid these kinds of claims in promotion decisions?Please make and support three specific suggestions to KGW, using knowledge you have learned in this course and/or what you’ve learned about KGW in this exercise.(10 points)