| Course | HRM-7630 The HRM Professional and Attorney Relationship |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Discussion forum: initial response and two comments |
| Length | About 454 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | MBA in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HRM 7630 Module 2
Module 2 Discussion: Discrimination After Muldrow
Some Harm Is Enough: What Muldrow Means for Branch Transfers at a Community Bank
Pinelands Community Bank regularly reassigns tellers and assistant managers between its branches to cover staffing needs. Until recently we treated these moves as routine, because they rarely change pay or title. After our outside counsel briefed us on Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), we realized that assumption needs to change.
In Muldrow, a police sergeant was transferred from a specialized unit to a patrol role with the same rank and pay but less prestigious duties and a different schedule. She alleged that the transfer was because of her sex. Several lower courts had required plaintiffs to show that a transfer caused a "significant" or "material" disadvantage. The Supreme Court rejected that requirement and held that a plaintiff must show only that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, not that the harm was significant. Discriminatory transfers that change duties, schedules or opportunities can therefore support a Title VII claim even without a change in pay.
For our bank, that means branch reassignments are employment decisions that must be made on legitimate, documented grounds. Walsh (2012) stresses that HR's records are often the employer's best evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason. A reassignment that moves an assistant manager to a lower-volume branch with fewer chances for promotion, or changes a teller's schedule in ways that affect child care, could be challenged if the decision appears to be linked to a protected characteristic.
Working with counsel, we are proposing three changes: written criteria for reassignments, such as staffing needs, skills and seniority; a requirement that managers record the reason for each move; and a quarterly HR review of reassignments by branch and employee group to spot patterns.
Comment on Lena's Post
Lena, you asked whether affirmative action plans still apply to federal contractors. My understanding from counsel is that the executive order that required written affirmative action plans for most federal contractors, Executive Order 11246, was revoked in January 2025, although obligations for veterans and individuals with disabilities under other laws continue. This seems like a good example of an area where HR should confirm current requirements with counsel rather than relying on past practice. Has your company's counsel advised on which plans to keep?
Comment on Theo's Post
Theo, I agree that harassment training should be interactive, but the Aguas decision in New Jersey suggests training alone is not enough; the policy must work in practice, which means complaints are investigated promptly and managers act on warning signs. Our Module 1 case showed how ignored exit interview comments could weaken a defense. Does your organization track how quickly complaints are resolved?
References
Aguas v. State, 220 N.J. 494 (2015).
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024).
Walsh, D. J. (2012). Employment law for human resource practice (4th ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.
Reading the HRM 7630 Module 2 assignment instructions
HRM-7630 has nine graded discussions worth 40 percent of the grade, each needing an initial response and comments on classmates' posts. The Module 2 forum covers discrimination, affirmative action and harassment, and the module also prepares for the first synchronous event on the relationship between HR and legal counsel. Expect a prompt asking how a recent case or legal development affects HR practice and how HR should work with counsel in response. Use the Walsh text and case law, cited in Bluebook form, and apply them to an organization. Check that legal statements are current, since several rules changed in 2024 and 2025. Expect classmates to raise different legal developments, so read their posts carefully before commenting.
How this HRM 7630 Module 2 example is built
The initial response opens with a routine practice the organization had not seen as legally risky. It explains the facts and holding of a 2024 Supreme Court decision, including the standard it rejected. It applies the holding to the organization's reassignments and uses the text on documentation. It closes with three changes developed with counsel. The first comment addresses a classmate's question about affirmative action plans with a careful statement of a 2025 change and a question; the second connects harassment training to the Module 1 case and state law. The post ends with concrete changes, showing how a legal development becomes HR practice.
HRM 7630 Module 2 rubric: what earns full marks
The forum is scored on how much and how thoughtfully you participate, how course material backs your points and how you answer others. Mentors look for accurate statements of current law, applied to a real practice, with case citations in Bluebook form. Posts that show how HR and counsel would work together on a change reflect the course's theme. Comments should add information or a perspective and invite further discussion. Professional, proofread writing matters, especially when stating legal rules. Mentors also value posts that show where HR needs counsel's judgment and where HR can act alone. Accurate, current statements about executive orders and regulations, with care to distinguish what changed and what did not, demonstrate professional responsibility.
HRM 7630 Module 2 help from the desk
Posts lose points when they state outdated legal standards, cite cases without full citations or discuss law in the abstract without applying it to a workplace. Others offer legal conclusions that only counsel should give. Summarize the case's facts and holding accurately. Apply it to a specific HR practice. Show where counsel's input is needed. In comments, correct or extend classmates' points with care and sources. A free first sample of your own HRM-7630 Module 2 post is available on request. Give the full citation the first time you mention a case. Separate what the court held from what you recommend. Keep comments respectful when correcting a classmate.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HRM 7630 and MBA in Human Resource Management sample papers
- HRM 7630 Module 1: Case Study: HR, Counsel and a Harassment Investigation
- HRM 7630 Module 3: Oral Argument: Off-Duty Cannabis Use and a New Jersey Firing
- HRM 7630 Module 4: Final Project: The Perfect Relationship Handbook for HR and Counsel
- HRM 7610 Module 1: Discussion: Culture and the Limits of a Global HR Policy
- HRM 7620 Module 4: Written Assignment: HR Leaders as Architects of Diversity Change
- HRM 7640 Module 1: Discussion: From Reporting to Prediction in HR Analytics
HRM 7630 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HRM 7630 Module 2 sample paper?
The full Module 2 discussion is above: an initial post on Muldrow v. City of St. Louis and branch transfers, and two comments on classmates' posts.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis?
A worker suing over a discriminatory transfer under Title VII need only show some harm to the terms or conditions of the job, not a significant one.
Do transfers without pay cuts create legal risk?
Yes. After Muldrow, a discriminatory transfer that changes duties, schedules or opportunities can support a Title VII claim even without a pay change.
Was Executive Order 11246 revoked?
Yes. It was revoked in January 2025, ending its affirmative action plan requirement for federal contractors, though other obligations remain.
How many discussions are in HRM-7630?
Nine graded forums, together 40 percent of the grade, plus an introductions thread that carries no marks.