Sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination compare U.S and China

  Order Description please be specific and detailed, comparative evaluation of the two countries’ relevant law (your analysis/discussion. HRLR 414 Individual or Group Paper Total available points:80 Group paper and presentation.Those students doing the assignment in groups (2 or more people) are required to do paper and a presentation. The structure of the paper is outlined below. It is expected to be between 15 and 20 pages in length. The presentation should be between 12 and 15 minutes long. Individual paper. Those students doing the assignment individually are only required to do a paper (no presentation). The structure of the paper is outlined below. It is expected to be between 11 and 15 pages in length. Basic tasks. Working in groups of 2 to 4 students, or individually, you will: • Identify and evaluate the law of two countries (e.g., U.S. vs. India) regarding one of the types of employment discrimination identified below (e.g., harassment, age discrimination); • Make a recommendation regarding how a MNE operating in both countries should deal with the differences in the two countries’ laws. • Briefly explain why your recommendation is justifiable from both legal and ethical perspectives. Structure of the paper (group and individual). • Brief introduction (1 or 2 paragraphs) • Description of Country 1’s relevant law (e.g., its law pertaining to sexual harassment, or sexual orientation discrimination, or family status discrimination, or religious discrimination). • Description of Country 2’s relevant law. • Comparative evaluation of the two countries’ relevant law (your analysis/discussion) o In whatway(s), if any, are the laws of the two countries similar? o What are the most significant differences? o Your thoughts about why the law in the two countries are different? Culture? Legal or political systems of the countries? Some unique event in one of the country’s history? o To what extent is each country’s law consistent with international standards? Is one country’s more consistent international standards than the other? Are they equally consistent, but in different ways? • Recommendation regarding how a MNE operating in both countriesshould deal with the differences in the two countries’ laws. Is there one company-wide policy that can applied effectively in both countries? Will it be necessary to have different employment policies and practices in each country? • An explanation of why your recommendation is justifiable from both legal and ethical perspectives. How does your recommendation take into account legal considerations (legal requirements and litigation risk)? How is it at least consistent with widely recognized ethical theories orspecific principles? • Do NOT provide a “Conclusion” section. While some kind of short “Conclusion” section/paragraph is often included in papers, they typically do not add anything of value to the paper. So, in the interest of efficiency, do not provide any kind of “Conclusion.” (“Deliverables” on next page) Deliverables • Initial references, due Friday, March16th, by 9 pm, submitted via a D2L dropbox (Week 10 module). Provide the full citation and abstract (or 2 to 3 sentence description of the source if an abstract is not provided) of at least five potential references for your paper. The references must be “credible” and clearly relevant to your topic, but the initial reference list does not have to be your final reference list (i.e., you may add additional sources, or not use some of the sources on your initial list). Professor Roehling will review your initial references to ensure that you are on the right track (in terms of identifying relevant and credible sources of information). o “Credible sources” include articles in peer reviewed (or “refereed”) journals, law review articles, book chapters, reports or other publications by reputable organizations such as the ILO, the United Nations, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Commission, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). o Sources that are NOT “credible” (for purposes of this academic paper) include, for example, newspaper articles, blog postings, and short articles in magazines. o The “full citation” means the: ? authors name (or name of publishing organization IF a specific author is not identified), ? year of the publication, ? full title of the publication, and ? page numbers. • Rough draft of your description of the relevant law for the two countries that you are comparing, a paper copy due in classby Thursday, March 29th (you may submit the rough draft earlier). The length of the description could vary significantly depending on the countries you are comparing (some countries may have relatively extensive or complex law pertaining your topic). However, I expect most descriptions of the law of the two countries, combined, will be between 2.5 and 5 pages in length. • [For groups only]A draft of the PowerPoints slides for your presentation for review by Prof. Roehling, due3 days BEFORE the date scheduled for your presentation. It is more efficient to review and provide feedback on paper copies of your slides, so please provide a paper copy if practical. However, if providing a paper copy is not practical (e.g., a draft of the slides are not done until the weekend before your presentation), then you can send a file copy to me at roehlin[email protected] (do NOT send them via the D2L email function). I will review the slides to ensure that there are not anyvery obvious issues with the content (e.g., clearly inaccurate statements, organization of content hard to follow) or format (e.g., excessive amount of text on a slide). • A paper copy of your final PowerPoint slides for your presentation, due on the day scheduled for your presentation, BEFORE you do your presentation(so thatProfessor Roehling may take notes on the paper copy during your presentation). • [For groups only] Class presentation. Deliver a 12 to 15 minute presentation to the class, using 6 to 9 PowerPoint slides. The presentations will be on 4/19, 4/24, and 4/26, the specific dates to be assigned to groupsin class, on Tuesday March 20th. • Final draft of your paper due April 26th. All individual papers and all group papers will be due the last day of class, April 26th. Getting Started • Lock in in the two countries you be comparing (if they are not already locked in). All papers must compare the law of two countries, and make a recommendation regarding how an employer operating in both countries should deal with the differences in the two countries’ laws. Therefore, if you (or your group) have not already locked in the two countries you will be comparing, the first thing you did to do is decide on the two countries you will be comparing. Note: There must be at least at least one significant difference between the law of two countries addressing the type of employment discrimination you are focusing on (sexual harassment, sexual orientation discrimination, etc.). • Develop a formal plan for developing your (or your group’s) expertiseregarding the type of discrimination you are focusing on and the relevant law of the two countries you will be comparing (i.e., develop a “research plan”). o Review the handout title “International Workplace Law Research Guide” o Discuss and agree on a plan to begin developing your group’s expertise? What specific sources will you search to begin developing your group’s legal expertise? What electronic databases or other sources will you search? How should we coordinate/divide up the initial searching? o I strong suggest you create a written outline of your research plan. • Decide what you are going to accomplish between now and Tuesday, March 13th (3 days before your initial references are due).For groups: Who is going to do what, and when will it be done by? Again, I suggest it be committed to writing.