After reading the case study below write a 8-10 page double-spaced typed paper addressing the following items:

1. Identify key issues for the employer, manager and/or employee that are unaddressed and/or need to be resolved;

2. Identify and describe how the issue can be resolved using a specific human resources concept, theory, tool or policy; Several concepts and/or theories used in public personnel are listed below

3. Your paper must include a minimum of 10 of the issues listed below. There may be other human resources issues other than those listed below.

Topics to be covered in the paper

Dress code

Time and attendance (i.e., lateness, absenteeism, returning to work late from lunch, etc.)

Adhering to your work schedule and office hours, lunch periods, etc.,

E-mail, Internet and cell phone use

Employee grievances

Sick leave

Maternity and paternity leave

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Alcohol and drug use

Personal relationships between employees

Conflicts of interests

Theft of intellectual property

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Hiring and Promotion

Disciplinary Actions

Smoking in the workplace

Harassment

Safety and Risk Management

Unemployment benefits.

Training and Development

Equal Employment

Background checks

Personal relationships between employees and customers

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA)

Employee Appraisals

Requirements: The paper must be a minimum of eight (8) pages..

Case Study: A Cushy Ride while it Lasted

For 15 years, New York University received a grant from the New York Department of Social Services. The purpose of the grant was to provide outreach, life skills training, financial literacy, transportation benefits and job search and readiness training to low-income fathers who were seeking to become self-sufficient. The fathers received public assistance benefits from the City.

The Department of Social Work at New York University administered the program on behalf of the University. A faculty member in the Department of Social Work served as the Director of the program. The grant funded the salaries for several full-time positions including a Supervisor, licensed social worker, Psychologist, two nurses, seven Case Managers, two Staff Assistants and five student interns.

Each of the employees working under the grant received full-time benefits. Like other University employees, individuals working on a grant were considered to be full-time regular employees. University employees received remitted tuition and retirement benefits. Employees working on granted were not offered remitted tuition and retirement benefits.

The grant period was from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. Employees were employed as long as there was grant funding. The grant specified that the University serve 1,500 low-income fathers. The Department of Social Work sent referrals to the program. The University did not have to recruit customers for the program.

The interns conducted the intake for each of the customers. The interns prescreened each father for mental health and behavioral issues and other health issues. Additionally, the interns would identify the need for any services.

Once the fathers were assigned to a Case Manager, an individual responsibility plan (IRP) was developed for them. For individuals seeking to complete their general equivalency diploma (GED), they were referred to an adult education vendor. All fathers received transportation fare cards to go back and forth between office visits, job search activities and medical appointments.

The Case Managers were located in two different buildings on campus. The Case Managers were responsible for ensuring that the fathers accessed needed services. Case Managers verified that each father had conducted a job search on a weekly basis. The Case Manager did not track the number of fare cards given to each of the customers on their case load.

The Case Managers were required to write case notes about each father in their file and conduct follow. The Supervisor was responsible for checking each Case Manager's notes on a weekly basis. The Supervisor checked for accuracy and grammatical errors.

English was not the Supervisor's first language. The supervisor had a very thick accent which made it difficult for customers and staff to understand him. The Supervisor would often attend meetings off site that he did not report to the Director or the staff members. When asked about it, the Supervisor would respond that he had a medical emergency. The Supervisor never reported this to the Director unless he was questioned.The Supervisor took old equipment old rather than disposing it as required by the University. He maintained the only key for all computer equipment.

The Case Managers wore flip flops, jeans with holes, piercings, tattoos and highlights in their hair. During breaks, several of the Supervisors would stand outside of the entrance to the program smoking with some of the customers.

Often the conversions include profanity and offensive language. Some Case Managers conducted their meetings while smoking with the customers and later reported that they had conducted a weekly meeting with the customer.

When the employee's received their appraisals, they all received superior ratings.

At the beginning of November 2015, a new Director was appointed to the program. Several changes were implemented to ensure transparency and accountability among the staff.

The first change included sign-in procedures. All staff were required to sign in at one central location.

The second change required all staff to complete the mandatory reporter training course. This affected their performance reviews.

The third change was for staff to report any conflicts of interest between them and vendors that were working with the program.

The Difector identified two Case Managers with familial relationships with vendors associated with the program. The two staff members did not openly report their relationships with the vendors.

The Director ceased all contracts with one vendor and placed another employee in a different role on the grant.

At the end of the fiscal year, there was lapse in getting the grant renewal expedited in a timely manner. The employees were terminated and did not know when they would return to work.

The Human Resources Department issued termination letters to each of them. The HR team counseled them on benefits and using the time off to participate in professional development training.

The employees returned after one week. Upon their return, the employees requested information from HR about unemployment benefits and being paid for the time when they did not report to work.

The University stated that the employees would not be paid for the period of time for which they did not work. Furthermore, the HR team indicated that none of the employees would receive unemployment benefits.

Human Resources also determined that the employees would no longer receive retirement benefits although the grant included enough funds to cover the expense.

The staff continued to question the HR team regarding their unemployment benefits. Furthermore, the Director decided to restructure the organization and requested each staff member to reapply for their position.