Legal issue facing human resource management in public administration

Full Answer Section

• Decisions Made: The new supervisor issued a lower performance evaluation. The agency is proceeding with performance improvement plan.
• Appropriateness of Decisions: The decision to issue a lower evaluation could be appropriate if there's documented evidence of declining performance. However, the sudden shift in evaluation scores, coupled with the employee's allegations of retaliation, raises serious concerns. Without clear, objective, and documented performance issues, the decision appears arbitrary and potentially unlawful. This echoes the principle of fairness and just judgment found in Micah 6:8, "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Justice demands consistent and unbiased evaluations.  
• Alternative Solutions: Before issuing the lower evaluation, the new supervisor should have: 1) Met with the employee to discuss specific performance concerns and provide opportunities for improvement. 2) Documented specific instances of alleged poor performance. 3) Provided the employee with clear expectations and support. 4) Conducted a thorough investigation into the employee's retaliation claims. A performance improvement plan should be collaborative, focusing on development, not punishment. As Cleveland (2019) notes, effective performance management requires ongoing feedback and a focus on employee growth.
• Conclusion: The agency should thoroughly investigate the retaliation claim and ensure the performance evaluation is based on objective, documented evidence. A fair and transparent performance management system is essential for a just and productive workplace.

Case Study 2: Discrimination - The Case of the Unqualified Applicant

• Important Facts: A public agency advertised a position requiring a specialized certification. A qualified minority applicant with the certification applied but was not selected for an interview. The agency instead interviewed and hired a white applicant without the required certification, claiming they had "equivalent experience." The minority applicant alleges discrimination.
• Decisions Made: The agency chose not to interview the minority applicant and hired a white applicant without the required qualifications.
• Appropriateness of Decisions: The decision appears discriminatory. Failing to interview a qualified minority applicant while interviewing and hiring a less qualified white applicant raises a strong inference of discrimination. The agency's claim of "equivalent experience" is weak if the job description specifically required a certification. This violates the principle of equal opportunity and fair treatment, which is at the heart of many biblical teachings, including Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Discrimination based on race or other protected characteristics cannot be justified.  
• Alternative Solutions: The agency should have: 1) Adhered to its stated job requirements and interviewed all qualified applicants, including the minority applicant. 2) Developed clear and objective criteria for evaluating "equivalent experience" if such substitutions are permitted. 3) Provided training to hiring managers on implicit bias and equal employment opportunity laws. As Mathis and Jackson (2020) argue, organizations must take proactive steps to prevent discrimination in all stages of the employment process.
• Conclusion: The agency's hiring decision appears discriminatory and likely violates equal employment opportunity laws. The agency should review its hiring practices and implement measures to ensure fairness and prevent future discrimination.

Case Study 3: Employee Retention and Separation - The Case of the Disgruntled Employee

• Important Facts: A long-term public sector employee expresses increasing dissatisfaction with their job, citing lack of opportunities for advancement and feeling undervalued. The employee begins to underperform and exhibits negative behavior. The agency eventually terminates the employee for poor performance. The employee claims wrongful termination, arguing their behavior was a result of the agency's failure to address their concerns.
• Decisions Made: The agency terminated the employee for poor performance.
• Appropriateness of Decisions: While the employee's underperformance is a legitimate concern, the agency's decision to terminate without attempting to address the employee's stated concerns about lack of advancement and feeling undervalued seems short-sighted and potentially unjust. Matthew 7:12's "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you," suggests a more compassionate and proactive approach would have been preferable.
• Alternative Solutions: The agency should have: 1) Met with the employee to discuss their concerns and explore potential solutions, such as training opportunities, career development, or internal transfers. 2) Provided the employee with clear performance expectations and support. 3) Offered counseling or employee assistance programs to address any underlying issues contributing to the employee's negative behavior. As Noe et al. (2019) emphasize, effective retention strategies involve addressing employee concerns and creating a positive work environment.  
• Conclusion: Terminating the employee without attempting to address their concerns about career development and feeling undervalued could be considered wrongful termination. The agency should focus on employee retention strategies and create a culture that values employee growth and addresses concerns proactively.

Sample Answer

Here are three separate critiques of case studies related to legal issues facing human resource management in public administration: Performance Management, Discrimination, and Employee Retention and Separation. Each critique includes a biblical integration component.

Case Study 1: Performance Management - The Case of the Inconsistent Evaluations

• Important Facts: A public sector employee consistently received positive performance evaluations for several years. A new supervisor took over and, within a few months, gave the employee a significantly lower evaluation, citing performance deficiencies. The employee alleges the lower evaluation is retaliatory due to the employee raising concerns about potential mismanagement within the department.