Legal Bus Ch21

Front 1

An employer’s discrimination against job applicants or employees on certain bases may violate both federal and state laws

Back 1

true

Front 2

An employer with fewer than fifteen employees is automatically shielded from federal employment discrimination laws.

Back 2

false

Front 3

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit job discrimination on the basis of experience.

Back 3

true

Front 4

All employers in the United States are subject to federal employment discrimination laws.

Back 4

false

Front 5

A victim of alleged discrimination must bring a suit against an employer before filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Back 5

false

Front 6

To establish a prima facie case of discrimina¬tion under Title VII, a plain¬tiff must show that discriminatory intent motivated an em¬ployer’s decision.

Back 6

false

Front 7

To bring an action against an employer based on intentional dis¬crimina¬tion, a person must show that he or she is a mem¬ber of a protected class.

Back 7

true

Front 8

Lack of discriminatory intent is a complete defense to a charge of unlawful employment discrimination.

Back 8

false

Front 9

Job requirements that relate to job performance cannot violate employment discrimination laws.

Back 9

false

Front 10

Disparate-impact discrimination occurs when an employer intention¬ally discrim¬inates against an employee who is a member of a protected class.

Back 10

false

Front 11

A small difference in job content can justify higher pay for one gender.

Back 11

false

Front 12

Under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, all of the women on an employer’s staff must be paid the same as all of the men.

Back 12

false

Front 13

If an employee can prove discrimination in the formation or enforcement of an employment contract, he or she may obtain a larger damages award.

Back 13

true

Front 14

An employer is not liable for the sexual harassment of an employee by the employee’s supervisor.

Back 14

false

Front 15

Gender can be a determining factor in an employer’s decision to hire, fire, or promote an employee.

Back 15

false

Front 16

It is not unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has opposed a discriminatory employment practice.

Back 16

false

Front 17

An employer is not liable for the sexual harassment of an employee by a co-worker who is not the employee’s supervisor.

Back 17

false

Front 18

An employer can be liable for an employee’s sexual harassment of a member of the same gender.

Back 18

true

Front 19

Title VII does not cover employees’ online activities.

Back 19

false

Front 20

Compensatory damages are only available for victims of in¬tentional employment dis¬crimination.

Back 20

false

Front 21

Damages are available for victims of in¬tentional employment dis¬crimi¬nation based on gender, religion, age, or disability.

Back 21

true

Front 22

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits employ¬ment discrimi¬nation on the basis of age against persons over twenty-one years old.

Back 22

false

Front 23

Many of the same remedies available under Title VII are available under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Back 23

true

Front 24

An employer must hire a dis¬abled applicant even if he or she lacks neces¬sary job qualifications

Back 24

false

Front 25

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 defines disabled persons as persons impaired mentally or physically “in any way.”

Back 25

false

Front 26

To establish a prima facie case of discrimina¬tion under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a plaintiff must show that dis¬criminatory in¬tent motivated an employer’s decision.

Back 26

false

Front 27

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, disabled employees are entitled to “reasonable accommodation.”

Back 27

true

Front 28

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a person with a physi¬cal impairment that “substantially limits” everyday activities is disabled.

Back 28

true

Front 29

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, disabled job appli¬cants are not entitled to “reasonable accommodation.”

Back 29

false

Front 30

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a person with a men¬tal impairment that “substantially limits” everyday activities is not disabled.

Back 30

false

Front 31

An employer must modify its job-application process so that those with disabilities can compete for jobs with those who do not have disabilities.

Back 31

true

Front 32

Terminating an employee who uses drugs violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Back 32

false

Front 33

A good business reason for a practice that has a discriminatory effect may permit an employer to avoid liability for discrimination.

Back 33

true

Front 34

An em¬ployer who hires and fires workers ac¬cording to a fair seniority sys¬tem may have a good defense to an employment discrimination suit.

Back 34

true

Front 35

Race can be a bona fide occupational qualification

Back 35

false

Front 36

An employer who discovers an employee’s misconduct after discharging the employee may have a good defense to an employment discrimination suit.

Back 36

false

Front 37

Under current law, an employer cannot adopt an affirmative action plan

Back 37

false

Front 38

Under current law, an employer cannot adopt an affirmative action plan.

Back 38

false

Front 39

After-acquired evidence of an employee’s wrongdoing can shield an employer entirely from liability for employment discrimination.

Back 39

false

Front 40

At least one court has held that an affirmative action program violated the U.S. Constitution.

Back 40

true

Front 41

Jake is a U.S. citizen working abroad for Kettle Corporation, which is a U.S. firm. Jake is protected by U.S. employment discrimination laws only if

Back 41

this does not violate the law of the country in which Jake works.

Front 42

Hu believes that he is a victim of a form of employment discrimination that falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Compliance with this statute is monitored by

Back 42

the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission

Front 43

Personnel Staffing Corporation meets all of the requirements to be subject to the federal employment discrimination laws. Among these, the most important statute prohibiting discrimination against members of protected classes is

Back 43

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Front 44

Lew, a member of a protected class, applies for a job with Mit-E Construction Company, but fails Mit-E’s employment test and is not hired. Lew believes that the test has an unintentionally discriminatory effect. If so, this is

Back 44

disparate-impact discrimination

Front 45

Lee is seventy years old and Mira is gay. Based on this information, members of protected classes include

Back 45

Lee only.

Front 46

Riki files an employment, gender-based discrimination suit against Superior Corporation under Title VII, on a disparate-impact theory. To succeed, Riki must show that Superior hires fewer women than the per¬centage of

Back 46

qualified women in the local labor market

Front 47

Cody believes that Delta Corporation has dis¬criminated against him on the basis of gender. Cody files a suit against Delta under Title VII. To es¬tablish a prima facie case of employment discrimi¬nation, Cody must show that

Back 47

Cody is a member of a protected class.

Front 48

United Industrial Corporation gives preferential treatment in hiring and promotion to the members of all protected classes. This treatment results in discrimination against members of the majority. This is

Back 48

reverse discrimination

Front 49

Olly applies for a job with Petro Company. Petro does not hire Olly because of his ethnicity, or national origin. This is

Back 49

disparate-treatment discrimination

Front 50

Gail is an employee of Home Appliances, Inc., but is un¬able to perform her job because of her pregnancy. Gail is

Back 50

entitled to disability leave only if Home treats other temporarily dis-abled employees similarly.

Front 51

Refer to Fact Pattern 21-1A. Fay files a suit against GCC under Title VII. To succeed, Fay must show that Hank’s statement was

Back 51

only a pretext for Fay’s dis¬charge.

Front 52

Refer to Fact Pattern 21-1A. To successfully defend itself in Fay’s suit, GCC must show that Hank’s statement was

Back 52

a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Fay’s discharge.

Front 53

Research Statistics Corporation uses a merit system to pay its employees according to their job performance. Suki, a female, and Troy, a male, are Research employees with comparable jobs. Due to superior performance, Suki is paid more than Troy. This is

Back 53

not discrimination

Front 54

Rona is Stu’s administrative assistant and both work for TriCounty Labor Inc. Stu tells Rona that for sexual favors, he will give her an excellent performance review and recommend a raise. This is

Back 54

quid pro quo harassment

Front 55

Lloyd and Milly are employees of NuTech Corporation. They have the same job. Under the Equal Pay Act, NuTech can legitimately pay Lloyd more than Milly on the basis of

Back 55

Lloyd’s greater production or seniority

Front 56

Refer to Fact Pattern 21-1B. Kit’s conduct is most likely a violation of

Back 56

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Front 57

Refer to Fact Pattern 21-1B. Liability for Kit’s conduct most likely rests with

Back 57

Long-Term Care, which should have known, and Kit, who acted.

Front 58

Greta is the only female employee in the maintenance department of Hydraulics Inc. Greta’s supervisor and co-workers tease and play tricks on her so relentlessly that she feels compelled to quit. This is

Back 58

a constructive discharge on the basis of gender discrimination.

Front 59

Fix-It Repair Shop does not take any action to prevent sexual harassment of its employees. Fix-It Repair may be liable for such harassment by

Back 59

a customer or an employee.

Front 60

Marie, an employee of Nickel Tool Company, files a sexual-harassment suit against Owen, her supervisor. Marie wins. Nickel may also be liable if it had effective harassment policies and complaint procedures, and

Back 60

Marie followed them.

Front 61

Kyla is a salesperson for Liberty Financial Corporation. Micky is also a Liberty salesperson. Neil is Kyla and Micky’s supervisor. Owen is a Liberty customer. Liberty may be li¬able for sexual harassment to Kyla by

Back 61

Micky, Neil, or Owen.

Front 62

Mold & Dye Corporation is a private employer in¬volved in a Title VII employment discrimination suit. Punitive damages may be recovered against Mold & Dye only if the employer

Back 62

acted with malice or reckless indifference

Front 63

Cora, a female, and Dom, a male, are employees of Equipment Leasing Corporation. Cora regularly e-mails sexually explicit images to Dom via Equipment Leasing’s computer network. Dom finds this offensive. This is

Back 63

hostile-environment harassment

Front 64

Svetlana, a fifty-five-year-old member of a racial minority with a disability, believes that she is a victim of employment discrimination. Potentially the most widespread form of discrimination is based on

Back 64

age.

Front 65

Mona files an employment discrimination suit against Nationwide Corporation (NC) under Title VII. If Mona shows that NC acted with malice or reckless indifference, she may recover

Back 65

compensatory or punitive damages.

Front 66

Refer to Fact Pattern 21-2B. Manny believes that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his age. For the Age Dis¬crimination in Employment Act of 1967 to apply

Back 66

Manny must be forty years of age or older.

Front 67

Refer to Fact Pattern 21-2B. To succeed with an age-discrimination claim against CBC, Manny will have to show that

Back 67

Manny is qualified for his job

Front 68

Piku files an employment discrimination suit against Quotient Accounting, Inc., under Title VII, based on its discharge of Piku. In these circum¬stances, possible relief under Title VII includes

Back 68

damages or job reinstatement

Front 69

United Company replaces Vera, a forty-five-year-old employee, with Wendy. Vera files a suit against United under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. To establish a prima facie case, Vera must show, among other things, that she is

Back 69

qualified for the position.

Front 70

Dan has AIDS, Eve is blind, and both work for First National Bank. Con-sidered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Back 70

are Dan and Eve.

Front 71

Hi-Flite Corporation requires its pilots to have 20/20 vision without glasses. Neither Inez, an African-American female, nor Jock, a fifty-year-old male, can satisfy this requirement. Relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act is available to

Back 71

neither Inez nor Jock.

Front 72

Dick is easily embarrassed, Elin is easily sunburned, and both work for First City Bank. Considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Back 72

is neither Dick nor Elin.

Front 73

Refer to Fact Pattern 21-2A. To succeed with a claim against COC under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Beth will have to show that

Back 73

COC refused to make reasonable accommodation for Beth.

Front 74

Refer to Fact Pattern 21-2A. To successfully defend against Beth’s claim, COC will have to show that

Back 74

COC cannot make changes to the doors without undue hardship.

Front 75

Paolo has cerebral palsy, Quincy has kleptomania, and both work for Reality Insurance Company. Considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Back 75

is Paolo only.

Front 76

Flynn is an alcoholic. Gert is morbidly obese. Both work for Helpful Credit Company. Considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Back 76

are Flynn and Gert.

Front 77

Sophisticates, a women’s clothing store, employs female attendants to as¬sist customers in the dressing rooms. Tod, a forty-one-year-old male, ap¬plies for an atten¬dant’s job, but is not hired. In Tod’s suit against Sophisticates for em-ployment discrimination under Title VII, the store has

Back 77

a bona fide occupational qualification defense

Front 78

Machine Corporation requires its employees to have a high school diploma, claiming a definite connection between a high school edu¬ca¬tion and job performance. In a suit against Machine Corporation under Title VII, this requirement is shown to have a discriminatory effect. The employer has

Back 78

a business necessity defense.

Front 79

Eton sues Funds Investment Company for employment discrimina¬tion under a state law. When compared to federal law, state law may provide

Back 79

more damages.

Front 80

Chris sues Delta, Inc., for employment discrimina¬tion under a state law. When compared to federal law, state law may apply to firms with

Back 80

fewer employees