The settlement of an age discrimination lawsuit
Sample Solution
In governmental accounting, the classification of items as "extraordinary" or "special" is governed by specific criteria outlined by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). These classifications are intended to highlight events that are either unusual in nature or infrequent in occurrence (extraordinary) or significant items that are either unusual or infrequent and are within management's control (special).
Let's analyze the settlement of an age discrimination lawsuit (item a) in this context:
a. The settlement of an age discrimination lawsuit:
Analysis:
- Unusual in Nature: While lawsuits against a city are not entirely uncommon, a significant settlement of an age discrimination lawsuit might be considered unusual depending on the city's history and the specific circumstances of the case. However, it's not inherently outside the normal course of a city's operations to face legal challenges related to employment practices.
- Infrequent in Occurrence: A material settlement of an age discrimination lawsuit might be infrequent for a particular city. However, given the complexities of employment law and the potential for such claims to arise over time, it's debatable whether it meets the "infrequent" criterion in the strictest sense.
GASB Guidance:
According to GASB standards, extraordinary items are defined as transactions or other events that are both:
- Unusual in nature: The underlying event or transaction has a high degree of abnormality and is clearly unrelated to, or only incidentally related to, the entity's ordinary and typical activities.
- Infrequent in occurrence: The underlying event or transaction is of a type that would not reasonably be expected to recur in the foreseeable future.
Special items are defined as significant transactions or other events that are either:
- Unusual in nature or infrequent in occurrence (as defined above); and
- Within the control of management.
Conclusion for Item a:
The settlement of an age discrimination lawsuit is unlikely to qualify as an "extraordinary" item under GASB definitions. While it might be infrequent for a specific city or have some unusual aspects, it's generally related to the city's ordinary function of managing its workforce and is a risk inherent in being an employer. It's difficult to argue that such a lawsuit is the type of event that would not reasonably be expected to recur in the foreseeable future for a large organization like a city.
Regarding classification as a "special" item, this is more subjective and depends on the specific circumstances and the city's interpretation and application of materiality and management control.
- It could be argued that the specific large settlement is infrequent.
- However, demonstrating that the lawsuit itself or the factors leading to the settlement were within the direct control of management in a way that distinguishes it as "special" might be challenging. Management has influence over personnel policies and legal defense strategies, but the outcome of a lawsuit is often influenced by external factors (legal interpretations, court decisions, plaintiff's case).
Therefore, while the settlement is a significant event that would be disclosed in the city's financial statements, it would most likely be reported as a normal operating expense or expenditure rather than as an extraordinary or special item. The focus of these special classifications is typically on events that are truly outside the normal realm of operations and expectations.
For items b, c, and d, a similar analysis based on the definitions of extraordinary and special items under GASB would be required.