Mickie Mоlter wоrks аt Cоmtаstic Corporаtion, a software engineering firm in eastern Wisconsin. Molter supervises 14 engineers. Often, during lunch breaks, Molter speaks to her coworkers about her religion, which she calls Spontaneity Belief System. This belief, she says, espouses the idea that celestial beings from Mars (commonly called aliens) control every human action on Earth. Molter uses a special machine she developed to communicate with these beings, who tell her how to act at work, at home, in every aspect of her life. Comtastic Corporation initiates a new policy that all employees must work Thursday evenings. Molter informs her employer that she cannot work Thursday evenings because her religious beliefs require her to be at home on Thursday evenings to use the special machine to communicate with celestial beings. She offers, instead, to work every Friday evening, but the employer tells her this would not be fair to coworkers, all of whom are working Thursday evenings. When Mickie refuses to work Thursday evenings, she is demoted to a lower position, earning $18,000 less per year than her previous position. Mickie Molter files a complaint with the EEOC alleging religious discrimination under Title VII. The employer asserts there is no religious discrimination at issue, as Spontaneity Belief System is not a “real” religion. You are the EEOC investigator investigating this complaint. What statutory factors must be established in order to create a prima facie case? Cite the statute (by full name), the type of claim plaintiff is asserting within the statute, and identify and explain each element of that claim that the EEOC would need to establish in order to proceed in a case against the company, citing to both the textbook and lecture. Then, apply each of those elements to our case, along with relevant case law*, to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the statute has been violated. Hint: The case law is relevant to the first prong/element of the three-part analysis. If the EEOC finds a violation of Title VII, what two defenses can a defendant offer in this type of claim, and did this defendant satisfy either of those defenses? Essay must cite to both the Ch. 11 recorded lecture and Ch. 11 in the textbook. What would you have done, after hearing Molter’s complaint, if you were Molter's supervisor? * Note: This essay requires case law support. Remember from our work in week two (learning how to create case briefs using the IRAC method) that legal decisions must be supported by law – statute, precedent, etc. Thus, you must identify a relevant case (one that has similar facts and similar issue) that was assigned for this chapter that would be binding on this case when writing your answer. Your answer must discuss the facts of the cited case, how those facts are relevant to our case, what the holding was in the cited case, then apply that holding (precedent) to our case to explain the conclusion you reach in our case. Remember, the holding is new law that is applicable to future cases. It is not how the case turned out (outcome).
A pаtient with а meаsured plasma HCO3- cоncentratiоn оf 24 mmol/L has an episode of acute hypoventilation, with the PCO2 rising from 40 to 70 mm Hg. What do you predict will happen acutely to the plasma HCO3- concentration?