| Course | BUSI 301 Legal and Ethical Concepts for Decision Makers (BUSI301) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 7 |
| Assignment | Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies |
| Paper type | Two discussion replies |
| Length | about 253 words (thread and replies). Course guide: replies to 2 classmates' Forum 3 threads, each at least 100 words and incorporating at least 1 source in current APA format |
| Format | APA 7 citations and reference list |
| Points | 50 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 7 in Liberty's published BUSI 301 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 301 Week 7
Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies: Responding to Classmates on Hiring and Title VII
BUSI 301 Legal and Ethical Concepts for Decision Makers, Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies
Thread by [Student Name]
The classmates and their threads are composites; the Supreme Court decision and research cited are real.
Reply to Marcus
Marcus, your idea of screening applicants with a general aptitude test is appealing because it treats everyone the same. The law, however, looks at effects as well as intentions. Duke Power required a diploma and passing scores on two general tests for transfers into better departments; in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the justices ruled that this violated Title VII, since the hurdles shut out Black workers far more often and the company never showed they predicted success on the job. So the question for your proposal is not whether the test looks evenhanded but whether its results fall unevenly and whether you could prove it predicts success in this particular job. An identical hurdle for every applicant can still be an unlawful one when it has nothing to do with the work. Could you validate the test against the actual skills the job requires?
Reply to Priya
Priya, you suggested that resume-screening software would remove human bias from hiring. Software can apply criteria consistently, but it learns from data that may reflect past bias. Raghavan et al. (2020) reviewed the public claims of vendors selling algorithmic screening tools and found that many said little about how they tested for bias, and that the methods they described could miss problems the law cares about. A system trained on a company's past successful hires may simply learn to prefer people who look like those hires. The employer, not the vendor, remains responsible under Title VII. What would you ask a vendor before buying such a tool?
References
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 469-481). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372828
What the BUSI 301 Week 7 instructions ask
Four Melvin chapters, 18 through 21, plus Connect Homework 7 fill BUSI 301's seventh module/week, along with responses to two hiring-law threads. Again, 100 words and one cited source per reply, 50 points for both. Because Forum 3 dealt with employment law, the most useful replies apply a legal doctrine or a piece of evidence to the hiring practice the classmate proposed, showing where it might create legal risk or fall short of fairness. Many students have taken pre-employment tests or applied through online screening systems, so the topic is familiar. Each reply needs a citation.
How this BUSI 301 Week 7 example is built
Each reply takes a hiring practice a classmate recommended and tests it against a source. The first applies the disparate impact doctrine from a landmark Supreme Court case to a proposed aptitude test, explaining the business necessity requirement in plain terms. The second applies research on algorithmic hiring to a proposal to rely on software, explaining how a system trained on past hiring can carry past bias forward. Marcus and Priya each hear what works in their idea first, then the legal concern, then a question. The case and the study are both described in plain terms, without legal jargon. Neither reply claims the classmate broke the law; each identifies a risk to manage.
BUSI 301 Week 7 grading rubric: where the points go
A strong hiring-law reply clears 100 words, speaks to the exact practice the classmate proposed, cites a case or study, and uses Title VII concepts correctly. Accurate statements of legal doctrine and of research findings are essential. Replies that identify a real legal risk in a classmate's proposal, explained respectfully, earn more than replies that agree. A reply without a source, or that misstates a court's holding, loses points, and posting only one reply forfeits half of the available credit. Legal concerns should be stated as risks to manage, not as accusations against the classmate. Replies that respect the classmate's goal while flagging a legal problem model the advisory tone managers need. Citing the case name and year correctly is part of accurate legal writing.
BUSI 301 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Read each classmate's proposal and ask how a court or a regulator might view it. Bring a source that speaks directly to that question, such as a leading case or a study, and explain its relevance in plain language. Give the case name and year when you cite a decision. Acknowledge the strength of the classmate's idea before raising the concern. Keep each reply between about 120 and 160 words, end with a question, and check APA format for both sources before posting. A question about how the classmate would test or validate the practice keeps the exchange constructive. Name the case or study in the first two sentences so the reader knows where your point comes from.
Related BUSI 301 sample papers
Other BUSI 301 weeks
- BUSI 301 Week 1: Forum 1 Thread
- BUSI 301 Week 2: Forum 1 Replies
- BUSI 301 Week 3: Forum 2 Thread
- BUSI 301 Week 4: Forum 2 Replies
- BUSI 301 Week 5: Book Review
- BUSI 301 Week 6: Forum 3 Thread
- BUSI 301 Week 8: Business Plan Paper
More BS in Business Administration sample papers
- BUSI 240 Week 7: Forum 4 Thread
- BUSI 300 Week 7: PowerPoint Presentation
- BUSI 303 Week 7: Forum 4 Thread
- BUSI 310 Week 2: Forum 1 Thread and Replies
BUSI 301 Week 7 questions, answered
What are the BUSI 301 Forum 3 Replies?
BUSI 301's last reply round, graded out of 50, responds to two hiring-law threads; each response clears 100 words and cites a source.
Where can I find a free BUSI 301 Week 7 sample paper?
Read the complete BUSI 301 Week 7 sample here: two replies on aptitude tests, disparate impact and algorithmic resume screening. Each reply cites federal law and research.
What did Griggs v. Duke Power Co. decide?
In 1971, the Supreme Court held that employment requirements that disproportionately exclude a protected group violate Title VII unless they are related to the job and justified by business necessity.
Can hiring software be biased?
Yes. Systems trained on past hiring decisions can reproduce past patterns, and a review of vendors found that claims about reducing bias were often vague or not independently tested.
What else is due in BUSI 301 Module/Week 7?
The seventh Connect set and four Melvin chapters, 18 through 21, keep students busy before the closing business plan. Plan the replies around that reading load.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 301 Week 7 sample · All BUSI 301 weeks · All courses