Complete the assignment:
Course Textbook
Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2009). Employment law for business (6th ed.).New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
ASSESSMENT 1
1. Titanium Office Products has had a record breaking year in terms of sales and revenue. It decides to reward its top sales representatives. Fourteen of the top reps are men and 7 are women. Titanium gives each of the reps an overnight stay at a top luxury hotel. In addition, the company pays for each of the men to play a round of golf at the hotel and tells the men that they can each invite one client as a guest for golf and lunch. The women are each given a full day beauty treatment at the hotel's spa but no round of golf. The women complain that Titanium's rewards are discriminatory.
The rewards are gender neutral because men like to play golf and women like to get a spa beauty treatment.
The rewards are discriminatory because Titanium did ask the women if they wanted to invite one client for a spa treatment.
The rewards are discriminatory because they are based on gender stereotypes and affect the women's employment.
The rewards are not discriminatory because Titanium's rewards to its sales staff are a gift beyond their regular compensation.
2. Stephanie is transgendered. Prior to becoming a woman, she was employed in the accounting department at Wright Brothers, LLC. She was fired after reporting to work dressed as a woman.
Stephanie has a cause of action under Title VII for gender discrimination against her former employer because she was fired for being transgendered.
Stephanie does not have a cause of action under Title VII for gender discrimination because discriminating against transgendered persons is not considered gender discrimination.
Stephanie does not have a cause of action under Title VII for gender discrimination because she did not file the action before she became a woman.
Stephanie has a cause of action under Title VII for gender discrimination because she is legally considered a woman.
3. The dress code for Bright View Home Decorating required employees to report for work dressed in "smart casual clothes." This meant that male employees could wear open collar sport shirts and women could wear slacks. However, when the district manager was scheduled to visit the Village of Upper Edge location, the Upper Edge store manager told the male employees to wear ties "because the district manager likes a professional look" and told female employees to wear skirts or dresses "because the district manager likes to see some leg." Under Title VII, female employees at the Upper Edge store:
cannot complain because an employer has the right to set the workplace dress code.
cannot complain because both make and female employees have to dress to please the district manager.
can complain because it is harder to select an appropriate skirt or dress than an appropriate tie.
can complain because the difference in attire is based on gender and has no business necessity.
4. Cassidy applies for a job as a combination bartender and server at Victor's Casino and Resort Spa. The interview process includes a tour of one of the bar areas at the casino. Cassidy notices that the male bar tenders and servers are all wearing tuxedos. The female bar tenders and servers, who are also known as "Victor's Vixens," are all wearing thigh length, low cut, tight, black velour dresses and high heeled shoes. Towards the end of the interview, the manager asks Cassidy if she is willing to wear the required velour dress. Cassidy says that would not be a problem. Male and female bartenders and servers are given identical duties and wages. A week after starting the job, Cassidy decides that she doesn't want to wear the velour dress anymore. She complains to her manager about the dress but the manager says it is part of the job and Cassidy agreed to wear it.
Cassidy cannot complain under Title VII because she witnessed the dresses before starting work and agreed to wear one.
Cassidy has a valid Title VII claim because females are being treated differently than men regarding attire with no explainable job related justification.
Cassidy cannot complain under Title VII because being one of "Victors's Vixens" is a BFOQ for female bartenders and servers for this brand of casino.
Cassidy cannot complain under Title VII because casino customers prefer to have women dressed provocatively but don't care about the men.
5. The male coaches of the men's baseball and ice hockey teams at Downstate Technological University ("D-Tech') receive bonuses for winning seasons. D-Tech does not have women's softball or ice hockey teams. D-tech has a women's gymnastic team and a women's volleyball team but no similar teams for men. The female coaches of the women's gymnastic team and the women's volleyball team do not receive bonuses for winning seasons. The coaches of the gymnastic team and the volleyball team allege pay discrimination based on sex/gender.
The coaches of the women's gymnastic team and the women's volleyball team can prevail in a case under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only if their jobs are substantially equal to the male coaches for baseball and ice hockey.
The coaches of the women's gymnastic team and the women's volleyball team can prevail in a case under the Title VII even if their jobs are not substantially equal to the male coaches for baseball and ice hockey.
The coaches of the women's gymnastic team and the women's volleyball team cannot prevail in a case under the Equal Pay Act because each coaching position is unique based on the differences between sports.
The coaches of the women's gymnastic team and the women's volleyball team cannot prevail in a case under the Equal Pay Act because it is not traditional in the sporting world to pay bonuses for winning seasons in gymnastics and volleyball.
6. Corinna is a sales representative for The Word Was Good, a distributor of religious books. Corinna lives with her boyfriend. She is pregnant. Her sales manager tells her that she cannot keep her job because having an unwed pregnant sales representative, and, later on, an unwed mother, is bad for The Word's image. Corrina feels that her employer's action is discriminatory.
Corrina cannot bring a case under Title VII because it is a business necessity for sales representatives of The Word Was Good to present a wholesome image.
Corrina can bring a case of gender plus discrimination under Title VII.
Corrina can bring a case of disparate impact gender discrimination under Title VII because the concept of wholesomeness has an adverse impact on women.
Corrina cannot bring a case under Title VII because it is a BFOQ for sales representatives of The Word Was Good to present a wholesome image.
7. Harry and Sally work for Chemco Chemical Supply Company. Harry and Sally attended a concert out of town and failed to show up to work the following day. When they returned to work, Harry was given a verbal warning and Sally was terminated.
Sally has a claim for gender discrimination.
Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if the company policy provides for termination for unexcused absences from work.
Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if Harry has more seniority.
Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if she has more seniority.
8. Jill and Seth, recent graduates, were hired as computer analysts for HRJ Enterprises. In a conversation over lunch, Jill discovered that Seth's salary was 15% higher than hers. Assuming that she was being paid less because she was female, Jill contacted the human resources department demanding that her salary be increased by 15%. She was told that Seth had violated company policy by discussing his salary. Seth told Jill later that the company lowered his salary by 15%.
Jill does not have a claim for discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because the company remedied the wage discrepancy by lowering Seth's salary.
Jill does have a claim for discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because the company remedied the wage discrepancy by lowing Seth's salary.
Jill would only have a claim under the Equal Pay Act because Title VII does not address gender discrimination relating to compensation.
Jill does not have a claim for discrimination because employers are free to set initial salaries without incurring liability under the Equal Pay Act or Title VII.
9. The Foggy Bottom Sheriff's Department requires all applicants for deputy sheriff to pass a pre-employment agility test. It requires an applicant to do 30 sit-ups in one minute, 25 pushups with no time limit, run 300 meters in 1 minute 11 seconds and drag a 165 pound dummy for a distance of 40 feet in 1 minute. Lisa McGregor fails the test. There are no female deputy sheriffs in the department.
Lisa has a valid claim for gender discrimination because the requirements of the agility test are too strenuous for most women.
Lisa has a valid claim for gender discrimination because the requirements of the agility test are just a subterfuge to avoid a claim of discrimination for screening applicants by height and weight.
Lisa does not have a valid claim for gender discrimination if the department can show that the agility test, as composed, is job-related and necessary.
Lisa does not have a valid claim for gender discrimination because the requirements of the agility test are not too strenuous for some women.
10. Laura Manning applied for a job as a firefighter. She was 5-feet-2-inches tall and weighed 110 lbs. Laura was denied the position because she did not meet the height and weight requirements of 5-feet-4-inches tall and 130 lbs. The fire department's height and weight requirements:
are not discriminatory if it can be shown that there is a relationship between the height and weight of the firefighter and her ability to perform the job.
are not discriminatory because historically, firefighters have always been tall.
are not discriminatory because Title VII only applies to gender discrimination, not long-standing societal traditions.
are discriminatory.
ASSESSMENT II
1. The defense to negligence, which involves proof that the plaintiff is responsible for the injuries of which she complains is:
assumption of the risk.
the fellow servant rule.
the greater danger defense.
contributory negligence.
2. An employer's duty to accommodate the religious practices of an employee is limited by:
the concepts of reasonableness and undue hardship.
the degree to which the religion involved is widely recognized.
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
expectations and demands by the employee.
3. Once an employer is aware of a conflict between company policy and an employee's religious practices, the employer must:
modify company policy so as not to discriminate against the employee's religious practices.
always exempt the employee from compliance with policy.
attempt to reasonably accommodate the employee's religious practice as long as the cost of doing so is de minimis.
inform the employee that he/she will be disciplined for violation of company policy just like any other employee.
4. In cases where a court is called upon to determine whether an employer has committed religion-based discrimination, the court must frequently first decide:
the legitimacy of the religion involved.
whether the employer is of a different religion than the employee.
how long the religion involved has been established.
whether even deciding the excessively entangles the government in the practice of religion.
5. Charity Hospital has 15 Muslim employees in the maintenance department. The hospital had a designated room for their Muslim employees to comply with their religious practice of praying 5 times daily located in the basement. Muhammad, a new employee, refused to use the room in the basement because he felt it degraded his religion to be relegated to the basement. Muhammad used the 3rd floor visitor waiting room 3 times per day to pray. His supervisor asked him not to pray in the visitor waiting room. Muhammad continued to use the waiting room and he was fired.
Muhammad has a claim for religious discrimination because Charity Hospital unreasonably failed to accommodate his religious practice by allowing him to pray where he felt comfortable.
Muhammad does not have a claim for religious discrimination because the room in the basement was not a reasonable accommodation.
Muhammad does not have a claim for religious discrimination because he had a duty to cooperate in the accommodation.
Muhammad does not have a claim for religious discrimination because the other employees participated in the accommodation.
6. An employer is deemed to have had constructive knowledge of a recognized hazard when:
past safety practices imply that the employer was aware of the hazard, and the hazard was so obvious that anyone would have been aware of it.
it has been the subject of a prior OSHA citation.
at least one prior injury has arisen out of the hazard.
the industry recognizes the hazard even if the employer doesn't actually know of the hazard.
7. In Varity Corp. v. Howe the court held that:
ERISA fiduciaries do not have any fiduciary duty to disclose truthful information on their own initiative.
ERISA's fiduciary standards were intended to protect the integrity of the plan, not the individual beneficiaries.
ERISA fiduciaries are required to discharge their duties with regard to the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries.
ERISA's remedies for breach of fiduciary duty were limited to the plan itself and participants and beneficiaries have no claim.
8. A religious organization will generally be exempt from the prohibitions in Title VII:
even in instances where the employment is in an area of purely non-sectarian activities.
unless it is a purely secular organization.
except in instances where the employment is in an area of purely sectarian activities.
if it is relieved of such obligations by the EEOC.
9. Patrick is employed by First Church of God as a cook in the daycare center. When Patrick was hired, he was attending the church and discussed joining the church with the pastor. After 3 months, Patrick had not joined the church, and his employment was terminated.
Patrick has a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII and the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause.
Patrick does not have a claim for religious discrimination because the church is exempt from compliance with Title VII.
Patrick has a claim for religious discrimination because his job did not involve religious practices or activities and he was terminated anyway.
Patrick does not have a claim for religious discrimination because he told the pastor he planned to join the church.
10. Melissa is employed by Conway Chemical Corporation. The company allows the employees to use the conference room for club meetings, like the knitting club and book club. Melissa has asked to use the conference room for prayer meetings on Wednesday mornings before her shift starts. Melissa's request was denied.
Melissa does not have a claim for religious discrimination because the other activities were purely secular in nature.
Melissa does not have a claim for religious discrimination because she failed to inform her employer of her religious belief.
Melissa has a cause of action for religious discrimination because she is being treated differently based on religion.
Melissa has a cause of action for religious discrimination because the RFRA states that it is religious discrimination for employers to allow employees to engage in secular activities and refuse to allow employees to engage in religious activities.
ASSESSMENT III
1. An English-only policy in the workplace:
will necessarily lead to an abusive environment for those whose primary language is not English.
does not violate Title VII as a matter of law.
may lead to an abusive environment for those whose primary language is not English.
is designed to deny non-English speaking individuals their protected right to express their cultural heritage.
2. If an employer enforces an English-only policy in all areas of the workplace and at all times, including break times and other free time,
the policy is presumptively discriminatory according to EEOC.
the employer is safer from a charge of national origin discrimination than an employer who only enforces the policy in certain areas and at certain times.
the employer impermissibly denies non-English speaking individuals their Title VII-protected right to express their cultural heritage.
the employer has no potential liability because all employees are required to speak English.
3. Carlos Alverez, a Mexican American, is 5 feet 4 1/2 inches tall, which is the average height for Spanish-surnamed men. He applied for a job as a mechanic with Quick Lube. He was not hired because he did not meet the minimum height requirement for the position, which was 5 feet 8 inches.
Carlos has a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII if he can show that the height requirement has a disparate impact on Spanish-surnamed Americans.
Carlos has a claim for national origin discrimination under the Immigration Reform and Control Act because he is a member of a protected class.
Carlos does not have a claim for national origin discrimination because he is a U.S. citizen.
Carlos does not have a claim for national origin discrimination because Quick Lube applied the height requirement to all applicants.
4. According to Garcia v. Spun Steak, facially neutral workplace policy will not cause a disparate impact with respect to a privilege of employment on the basis of national origin if:
the policy can be easily complied with and noncompliance is purely a matter of an immutable characteristic.
the policy can be easily complied with but noncompliance is not a matter of individual preference.
the policy can be easily complied with.
the policy can be easily complied with and noncompliance is purely a matter of individual preference.
5. Nesbitt hires Francois, a legal alien working in the U.S. with the legal authority to do so. One month later, Francois loses his right to work in the U.S.:
Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois cannot constitute a violation of IRCA.
Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois constitutes national origin discrimination against individuals with a U.S. national origin.
Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute a violation of IRCA if Nesbitt knows that Francois is now an unauthorized alien.
Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute prima facie evidence of criminal liability under IRCA.
6. Smith issues a workplace policy stating that any employee who is married to anyone from any Latin American country will be ineligible for promotion to line supervisor level. This policy:
does not violate Title VII because it will result in discrimination against individuals who are connected to individuals of a specific national origin.
violates Title VII because it will result in discrimination against individuals who are connected to individuals of a specific national origin.
does not violate Title VII because its effect is not triggered by the national origin of the individuals it affects.
violates Title VII because being bilingual is an immutable characteristic.
7. Margaret comes to work in clothes highly reflective of the national origin of her ancestors, and which also happen to violate the dress code of the White City Dairy. She is told to return home, and change into clothing that comports with the dress code.
Margaret has a claim under Title VII for national origin discrimination because she only wears outfits reflective of the national origin of her ancestors on holidays.
White City can defend the dress code if customers or co-workers are "uncomfortable" with how Margaret looks when she wears those clothes.
White City can defend the dress code if Margaret's national heritage outfit poses a safety hazard.
White City can defend the dress code if it allows other employees to dress casually at work.
8. The prohibition against national origin discrimination in Title VII is subject to the political function exception which
disqualifies a naturalized U.S. citizen from running for President of the United States.
allows employers to discriminate against individuals who are illegal aliens.
allows discrimination against a non-citizen when the position is intimately related to the process of democratic self-government.
allows employers to discriminate against individuals whose national origin is a country with which trade has been outlawed by a presidential Executive Order or an act of Congress.
9. In order to avoid liability, under Title VII, after an employee has proven a prima facie case of disparate treatment national origin discrimination, an employer must prove the following defense:
a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification.
an adverse employment action.
a political function exception.
a business necessity.
10. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) makes it illegal to:
hire authorized aliens or refer authorized aliens for employment.
discriminate in favor of American citizens if there is an equally qualified authorized alien.
continue to employ an alien in the U.S. knowing that he/she has become an unauthorized alien
to hire an unauthorized alien if the employer is a federal contractor.
1. Once the employee has offered evidence to support a prima facie case for disparate treatment age discrimination, the employer burden of proof shifts and the employer:
(I)can present a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision.
(II) can use the BFOQ defense
(III) can claim exemption from compliance based on the OWBPA
(IV) can claim a business necessity defense
I only.
I and II.
I, II, and III.
I, II and IV.
I, II, III and IV.
2. Carlos, age 24, and Samuel, age 47, are employed as security officers for Jackson Security Co. In an effort to retain qualified officers and to be more competitive with the salaries offered by the police department, Jackson developed an incentive plan which provided for higher raises for younger officers. As a result, Jackson gave Carlos a higher raise than Samuel. Samuel filed a claim for age discrimination.
Jackson will be liable for age discrimination because it treats older workers differently than its younger workers.
Jackson will not be liable for age discrimination because the ADEA allows for different treatment when it is based on a reasonable factor other than age.
Jackson will be liable for age discrimination because Samuel did not file a waiver.
Jackson will not be liable for age discrimination because Samuel was given a raise and his seniority status was not affected.
3. Michael Morgan injured his back at work which resulted in a permanent partial disability. Specifically, Michael was unable to sit or stand for long periods of time. He desired to return to work, however, he was not able to perform the duties of his old job. Michael waived the medical restrictions and returned to work anyway. He compensated for the disability by using sick days and vacation days which amounted to at least 1 to 2 days per week. After 3 months of working this schedule, he was terminated. According to the court in Pickens v. Soo Line Railroad Co.:
Michael has a claim for discriminatory discharge under the ADA because he could perform the "essential functions" of the job when he able to work.
Michael has a claim for discriminatory discharge under the ADA because he is "otherwise qualified" for the job.
Michael does not have a claim for discriminatory discharge because his waiver of medical restrictions for employment eliminated his disability for purposes of the ADA.
Michael does not have a claim for discriminatory discharge because he cannot perform the "essential functions" of the job because regular attendance is a necessary element of the job.
4. A willful violation of the ADEA can result in an award of liquidated damages which is:
the total of back pay, front pay and any other unpaid wage liability owed to the employee-plaintiff.
compensation for pain and suffering.
an amount that is equal to any unpaid wage liability and results in a doubling of the unpaid wage liability.
an amount sufficient to punish the wrong doer from willfully violating the ADEA in the future.
5. Wolfgang has been diagnosed as having "alcoholism" and it is getting worse. It is beginning to affect his attendance and his demeanor at work. Wolfgang is afraid his employer, the Big Rock Quarry, will find out but his supervisor already suspects that Wolfgang is an alcoholic. In order to terminate Wolfgang, other than for specific misconduct, Big Rock must:
(I) inform Wolfgang of counseling services.
(II) give Wolfgang a "firm choice" between treatment and discipline if the alcoholism continues.
(III) provide outpatient treatment if Wolfgang accepts it.
(IV) provide inpatient treatment if outpatient treatment is unsuccessful.
I and III only.
II only
II, III, and IV only.
I, II, III and IV.
6. In order to establish that a requested accommodation constitutes an undue hardship under the ADA, an employer must show that the accommodation:
is not readily achievable.
will require the employer to incur more than a de minimis cost.
will require the employer to incur a significant cost or obligation.
will result in inconvenience to other employees.
7. An employer who raises the "same actor" defense asserts that:
when a worker protected by ADEA is hired and fired by the same person, there is a permissible inference that the employee's age was not a motivating factor in the decision to terminate.
employees in the motion picture, television and theater industries are not protected under the ADEA if they are replaced by a younger performer who has already performed the part in another production.
when an employee signs a defective waiver under the OWBA, the employee must repay any benefits received under the defective waiver.
when other persons had influence or leverage over the official decision maker, and thus were not ordinary co-workers, it is proper to impute their discriminatory attitudes to the formal decision maker.
8. Marie was severely burned as a child in a house fire. She has extensive disfiguring scars on her face and neck. She applied for a job as a cashier at Food Mart and was not hired even though she had worked as a cashier at her father's store for 7 years before he retired. She filed a claim under the ADA.
Food Mart is liable under the ADA because of its perception that Marie's facial scars constitute an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.
Food Mart is not liable under the ADA because refusing to hire someone based on their appearance does not violate the ADA.
Food Mart is liable under the ADA because it failed to offer Marie a job stocking shelves after the store closed as an accommodation.
Food Mart is not liable because the facial scars are not severe and pervasive.
9. Principle enforcement of the ADEA is by:
state courts.
federal courts.
the NLRB.
the EEOC.
10. Louise has been subject to extensive verbal abuse and teasing at work because she has a speech impediment and stutters. Louise wants to bring a complaint of workplace harassment under the ADA.
Louise cannot bring a claim of workplace harassment under the ADA because her problem at work is not related to her ability to perform the essential functions of her job.
Louise can bring a claim for workplace harassment under the ADA if she can show that her speech impediment and stuttering affect a major life activity or if she is regarded as disabled.
Louise cannot bring a claim of workplace harassment under the ADA because some people have been able to use corrective measures to deal with their stuttering.
Louise can bring a claim for workplace harassment under the ADA because, in German, her name means "famous warrior."