Employment discrimination scenerios | Law homework help
Maria, a Mexican American, and Sophia, a white American, applied for jobs at Golden Enterprises. Maria was not hired. In order to prevail on a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII, Maria must prove
1. that Sophia was not qualified for the job.
2. that Golden Enterprises cannot articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for hiring Sophia.
3. that Golden Enterprises has at least 10 employees.
4. that she was qualified for the job.
Omar Khaleel applied for a job as a bus driver with the Overland Omnibus Corporation. His employer was worried that it might be dangerous to allow someone of Middle Eastern descent to drive a large bus, loaded with 160 gallons of fuel, into the heart of the downtown areas in the cities served by the company. Therefore, he asked Omar to submit a more stringent background check than was used for other bus drivers. Eight months later, the background check was completed and Omar was hired as a driver.
1. Omar has no basis for a claim under Title VII because Overland was just being prudent as a result of the events of September 11, 2001.
2. Omar has no basis for a claim under Title VII because he was hired as a bus driver.
3. Omar can claim national origin discrimination under Title VII because he was treated differently than other bus drivers based on his Middle Eastern descent.
4. Omar can claim national origin discrimination under Title VII because his employer had difficulty pronouncing his name properly.
Melanie is a white female, and she is married to Muhammad, who is of Middle Eastern descent. She has been employed at The Office Works for 3 weeks. Melanie has been subjected to daily verbal abuse since Muhammad dropped by to take her to lunch and her co-workers became aware of his ethnicity. She has been called an “Arab whore” and a “terrorist.” Her co-workers refuse to work with her, and her supervisor has responded to this behavior by assigning her to tasks in the stockroom when previously she assisted customers in the computer department.
1. Melanie does not have a claim for national origin discrimination because she is not a member of a protected class.
2. Melanie does have a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII because she is being harassed based on the national origin of her husband.
3. Melanie does not have a claim for national origin discrimination because she has only been employed for 3 weeks.
4. Melanie does have a claim for national origin discrimination because the behavior of her co-workers and supervisor is neither severe nor pervasive.
An English-only policy in the workplace:
1. will necessarily lead to an abusive environment for those whose primary language is not English.
2. does not violate Title VII as a matter of law.
3. may lead to an abusive environment for those whose primary language is not English.
4. is designed to deny non-English speaking individuals their protected right to express their cultural heritage.
Virtually all of the non-U.S. citizens in the labor pool available to an employer are of Mexican descent, many of whom are legal aliens having the right to work in the U.S. The employer implements a policy against hiring any non-U.S. citizens. This policy:
1. is expressly exempt from Title VII, by the Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion or National Origin.
2. impermissibly denies individuals their Title VII-protected right to express their cultural heritage.
3. does not, as a matter of law, violate Title VII.
4. could be found to discriminate on the basis of national origin resulting in disparate impact discrimination in violation of Title VII
Luis Vargas has been employed as a security officer for Slate Mountain Waterworks for 10 years. He has worked with Brett Simpson, also a security guard, for the last 3 years. Both Luis and Brett applied for the job of chief security office when the position became available. Brett was hired for the position. Slate Mountain only has 10 employees. Luis overheard Mr. Slate say he would never promote a Mexican if he could give the job to a real American.
1. Luis can file a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII.
2. Luis can file a claim for national origin discrimination under the IRCA.
3. Luis cannot file a claim for national origin discrimination because he is still employed and there was no adverse employment action.
4. Luis cannot file a claim at all.
Tang Li is employed by Henderson Corporation as a computer analyst. Once, in a fit of anger, Bob, his supervisor, used an ethnic slur in referring to Tang. Six months later, Bob yelled at Tang, calling him stupid.
1. Tang has a claim for harassment based on national origin under Title VII.
2. Tang does not have a claim for harassment based on national origin under Title VII because these two incidents, although offensive, would not create a hostile work environment.
3. Tang has a claim for harassment based on national origin because anytime an ethnic slur is used in the workplace, it constitutes harassment and the employer is liable.
4. Tang does not have a claim for harassment based on national origin because he did not report the first incident.
The prohibition against national origin discrimination in Title VII is subject to the political function exception which
1. disqualifies a naturalized U.S. citizen from running for President of the United States.
2. allows employers to discriminate against individuals who are illegal aliens.
3. allows discrimination against a non-citizen when the position is intimately related to the process of democratic self-government.
4. 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.
David Perez born in Port Alice, Wyoming. Under the Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion or National Origin, the federal agency for which he works must take affirmative steps to ensure that he is not discriminated against on the basis of the fact that his parents are
2. Southern European Italian Jewish.
3. Native American.
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.:
1. Nesbitt’s continued employment of Francois cannot constitute a violation of IRCA.
2. Nesbitt’s continued employment of Francois constitutes national origin discrimination against individuals with a U.S. national origin.
3. Nesbitt’s continued employment of Francois will constitute a violation of IRCA if Nesbitt knows that Francois is now an unauthorized alien.
4. Nesbitt’s continued employment of Francois will constitute prima facie evidence of criminal liability under IRCA.
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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 the each coaching position is unique based on differences between sports.
4. 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.
Dahlia is a photography analyst. She reviews photographs for placement in a stock images catalog. Her male colleagues, who review photographs for placement in a stock images catalog, are image technicians. She complains that she is paid less for doing the same work as them.
1. Dahlia will prevail on a claim under the Equal Pay Act if the jobs require equal skill, effort and responsibility.
2. Dahlia will not prevail on a claim under the Equal Pay Act because the wage rates for these jobs have been historically different.
3. Dahlia will not prevail on a claim under the Equal Pay Act because the company hired image technicians before it hired photography analysts so all of the technicians have more years with the company than she does.
4. Dahlia will prevail on her claim under the Equal Pay Act if she can show that her job as a photography analyst is more productive than an image technician is safe from liability under the Equal Pay Act.
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.
1. Lisa has a valid claim for gender discrimination because the requirements of the agility test are too strenuous for most women.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Lisa does not have a valid claim for gender discrimination because the requirements of the agility test are not too strenuous for some women.
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:
1. 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.
2. are not discriminatory because historically, firefighters have always been tall.
3. are not discriminatory because Title VII only applies to gender discrimination, not long-standing societal traditions.
4. are discriminatory.
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%.
1. 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.
2. Jill does have a claim for discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because the company remedied the wage discrepancy by lowing Seth’s salary.
3. Jill would only have a claim under the Equal Pay Act because Title VII does not address gender discrimination relating to compensation.
4. 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.
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.
1. Sally has a claim for gender discrimination.
2. Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if the company policy provides for termination for unexcused absences from work.
3. Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if Harry has more seniority.
4. Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if she has more seniority.
The police chief of the City of Healing Springs has suggested that female patrol officers seek transfers away from high crime areas because he has heard rumors that male officers do not want to have female officers present in dangerous situations and might not support the female officers in the event that physical force is needed for policing. Healing Springs female police officers:
1. can bring an action for gender discrimination under Title VII.
2. cannot bring an action for gender discrimination under Title VII because the chief’s suggestion is designed to protect the safety of the female officers.
3. cannot bring an action for gender discrimination under Title VII because the chief’s suggestion is designed to protect the safety of the male officers.
4. can bring an action under the Equal Pay Act.
Fetal protection polices
1. subject employers to tort liability on the basis of negligence for harm to the unborn fetus of an employee.
2. are prohibited by Title VII if the policy applies only to women.
3. are prohibited by Title VII if the policy applies to women and men.
4. are permitted by Title VII if the policy applies only to women.
Mr. Tompkins, of Tompkins, Lawlor & Tompkins, Attorneys at law, was conducting an interview for a first year associate. He asked Misty Rabon if she was married and when she intended, if ever, to have children. His second interview was with Scott Naylor. He did not ask Scott either of these questions.
1. Misty Rabon has a claim for gender discrimination.
2. Misty Rabon does not have a claim for gender discrimination because she was never employed by the law firm.
3. Misty Rabon does not have a claim for gender discrimination because she was the only person that heard Mr. Tompkins ask the questions.
4. Mr. Naylor has a claim for gender discrimination, but he must file it within 6 months of getting hired.
Solid Security Service hires male and female security officers. Solid only assigns the female employees to work at the local mall from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The company’s rationale is that the mall is a low risk area for violent crime until 3:00 p.m. Male employees are allowed to work day and night shifts and are assigned to a variety of work sites.
1. Solid is not liable for gender discrimination because it can use BFOQ as a defense to any claim filed by its female employees.
2. Solid is not liable for gender discrimination because it employs men and women.
3. Solid is liable for gender discrimination because its male and female employees are being treated differently based on their gender.
4. Solid is not liable for gender discrimination because it pays all employees based on the same wage scale, regardless of gender.
Cara has been employed by Dalton Department Store for 10 years as a sales associate in the women’s department. After she became a Muslim, she decided to wear a burka, a full-body cloak, with a small mesh-like screen to see through. When she reported for work wearing a burka, her employer told her that she was in violation of the company’s dress policy. Cara was told to change her clothes or go home. Cara refused to change her clothes and left. She was contacted by her employer later that day and was told that she could continue to work for the company in the stock room at no reduction in pay.
1. Dalton Department Store has no liability under Title VII because Cara was offered a reasonable accommodation
2. Cara has an actionable claim under Title VII because she was demoted and adverse employment actions are not considered reasonable accommodations.
3. Dalton Department Store is liable for religious discrimination because there was no evidence that their customers would have been offended by Cara’s clothing.
4. Cara does not have an actionable claim for religious discrimination because she was aware of the grooming policy before she decided to follow the Muslim religion.
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.
1. Melissa does not have a claim for religious discrimination because the other activities were purely secular in nature.
2. Melissa does not have a claim for religious discrimination because she failed to inform her employer of her religious belief.
3. Melissa has a cause of action for religious discrimination because she is being treated differently based on religion.
4. 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.
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.
1. Patrick has a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII and the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
2. Patrick does not have a claim for religious discrimination because the church is exempt from compliance with Title VII.
3. Patrick has a claim for religious discrimination because his job did not involve religious practices or activities and he was terminated anyway.
4. Patrick does not have a claim for religious discrimination because he told the pastor he planned to join the church.
Beatrice sues her employer for a negligently incurred injury. The employer attempts to show that it was the acts of one of Beatrice’s coworkers that caused Beatrice’s injuries. The employer is asserting:
1. the fellow servant rule.
2. assumption of the risk.
3. the greater danger defense.
4. contributory negligence.
A religious organization will generally be exempt from the prohibitions in Title VII:
1. even in instances where the employment is in an area of purely non-sectarian activities.
2. unless it is a purely secular organization.
3. except in instances where the employment is in an area of purely sectarian activities.
4. if it is relieved of such obligations by the EEOC.
The general duty clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act:
1. applies in addition to specific OSHA standards, and requires an employer maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical injury to an employee.
2. applies in the absence of any specific OSHA standard and requires an employer maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical injury to an employee.
3. applies only to industrial workplaces.
4. eliminates the availability of the fellow servant rule and the contributory negligence defenses in cases where the employer had a statutory duty.
The defense to negligence, which involves proof that the plaintiff is responsible for the injuries of which she complains is:
1. assumption of the risk.
2. the fellow servant rule.
3. the greater danger defense.
4. contributory negligence
The OSHA requirement that employers provide safety training to all new employees and to all employees who have been transferred into new positions:
1. is the general duty rule.
2. is the safety training requirement.
3. is the continual training requirement.
4. is the safety standard duty.
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.
1. 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.
2. Muhammad does not have a claim for religious discrimination because the room in the basement was not a reasonable accommodation.
3. Muhammad does not have a claim for religious discrimination because he had a duty to cooperate in the accommodation.
4. Muhammad does not have a claim for religious discrimination because the other employees participated in the accommodation.
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.
1. 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.
2. Food Mart is not liable under the ADA because refusing to hire someone based on their appearance does not violate the ADA.
3. Food Mart is liable under the ADA because it failed to offer Marie a job stocking shelves after the store closed as an accommodation.
4. Food Mart is not liable because the facial scars are not severe and pervasive.
In order to establish that a requested accommodation constitutes an undue hardship under the ADA, an employer must show that the accommodation:
1. is not readily achievable.
2. will require the employer to incur more than a de minimis cost.
3. will require the employer to incur a significant cost or obligation.
4. will result in inconvenience to other employees.
Catherine, aged 59, was employed as a make-up artist with a local department store. The company hired a new manager. He fired Catherine and gave her job to Katrina, age 42. Catherine is alleging age discrimination.
1. Catherine cannot claim age discrimination because Katrina at age 42 is a member of the protected class as well.
2. Catherine cannot claim age discrimination because the employer has a mandatory retirement age.
3. Catherine can claim age discrimination because the employer did not correctly apply the provisions of OWBPA.
4. Catherine can claim age discrimination even though her replacement was a member of the protected class.
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.:
1. 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.
2. Michael has a claim for discriminatory discharge under the ADA because he is “otherwise qualified” for the job.
3. 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.
4. 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.
A willful violation of the ADEA can result in an award of liquidated damages which is
1. the total of back pay, front pay and any other unpaid wage liability owed to the employee-plaintiff.
2. compensation for pain and suffering.
3. an amount that is equal to any unpaid wage liability and results in a doubling of the unpaid wage liability.
4. an amount sufficient to punish the wrong doer from willfully violating the ADEA in the future.
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
1. I only.
2. I and II.
3. I, II, and III.
4. I, II and IV.
5. I, II, III and IV.
An accommodation, under the ADA, is reasonable if:
1. it is feasible.
2. it has been provided by another employer, to a similarly disabled employee.
3. it does not cause a burden on the employer.
4. it does not cause an undue burden on the employer.
Gabriela realizes that she will need some form of accommodation in order to perform the essential functions of her position. In order to pursue a claim under the ADA, Gabriela must:
1. give written notice of the disability to her employer.
2. explicitly tell her employer that she is making a request under the ADA
3. make explicit reference to the term “reasonable accommodation.”
4. communicate the requirement in “plain English.”
1. protects all persons against age discrimination in employment.
2. protects all employees who are at least 40 years of age, against age discrimination in employment.
3. protects all persons who are at least 40 years of age, against age discrimination in employment.
4. protects all employees who are between the ages of 40 and 70 against age discrimination in employment.
Principle enforcement of the ADEA is by:
1. state courts.
2. federal courts.
3. the NLRB.
4. the EEOC.