BUL 3320 Workplace Fairness Case Study
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
BUL 3320 Workplace Fairness Case Study
You are partners in Too Strange to Eat, a bakery in Tampa, Florida that specializes in exotic, expensive pastries. The business has grown quickly in its first 4 years and now sells products to stores and restaurants throughout Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. Your bakery is well known in these areas for its secrecy regarding the recipe for your famous “Ant” cake. Your customer list is one of your prized possessions, with customers from all over this region, some from word of mouth, others from online.
Sandra has applied for a management position and appears to be the perfect candidate. She has 5 years experience as a food wholesaler and a reputation as a superb amateur chef. Sandra would be hired to analyze the market for new products, create new pastries and other foods, and assist in selling new and existing products. Sandra would work with company chefs, salespeople and customers –just about everyone.
You and your partners are concerned that if Sandra leaves, she will have confidential information about your business. You are concerned that she may either start her own company with this information or work for a competing business.
Your assignment is to draft a non-compete clause for Sandra’s contract that a court would enforce. Your non-compete clause should be no less than a half a page single spaced and Times New Roman: 12-point font. You may have sub-sections to your clause. Please include at least three resources that assisted in your drafting this clause on a separate page. Of the three resources, please discuss in detail (250+ words) why this resource served you best, e.g. why did you trust it, where was it from, why is it reliable, etc.).
BUL 3320 Workplace Fairness Case Study
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow