Reference no: EM13968435

1. Ms. Jane graduated from StateUniversity in 1987 with a Bachelor's Degree in economics. She subsequently graduated from StateLawSchool in 1995. She graduated 58th out of a class of 2008. This information is relevant to whether

A. Ms. Jane is a credible witness, because as a law student she took ethics courses.

B. Ms. Jane is competent to perform her job, which is one of the elements of the complaint.

C. Ms. Jane understands the economic harm done to her as she has alleged.

D. Ms. Jane is a moral person, because she has alleged that the defendant has engaged in immoral behavior.

2. At a meeting between Ms. Jane and Mr. Max held on or about June 12, 2001, Mr. Max told her that if she was hired he would help her "make the grade, if she was as good as he believed her to be." The words were stated with a licentious inflection. This evidence is relevant to

A. Whether Ms. Jane and Mr. Max knew each other before being offered employment with the firm.

B. Ms. Jane's state of mind in being told this.

C. Establishing Mr. Max's state of mind in hiring Ms. Jane.

D. Whether Ms. Jane was competent at her job.

3. From 2001 until the present, Mr. Max was responsible for the assignment of work to associates in the Litigation Department. This evidence is relevant to

A. Establishing that Mr. Max was an employee acting within the scope of his employment during the actions complained of.

B. Establishing that Max is a competent attorney.

C. Establishing that Ms. Jane was required to obey ALL of Mr. Max's orders, even if they were illegal orders.

D. Establishing Mr. Max's state of mind.

4. However, Mr. Max primarily assigned the plaintiff to civil actions that were small cases by Firm standards, family law cases, and a variety of criminal matters. This evidence is relevant to

A. Establishing whether Mr. Max treated Ms. Jane differently than other associates who were male at the law firm.

B. whether Ms. Jane had any experience with cases at the law firm;

C. Establishing Firm standards.

D. All of the above.

5. Ms. Jane did not work for more than 200 hours on any one matter in any year. This evidence is relevant to establishing that

A. Ms. Jane was not a worker on par with other associates, because she billed less hours than other associates.

B. The cases that Ms. Jane was assigned to were ones the Firm viewed as less substantial and so, in general, could not support many hours billed on any one case.

C. Ms. Jane was lazy.

D. Lawyers at the firm do not work very hard.

6. In contrast, virtually all the male associates in the firm worked on major matters for which they logged at least 600 hours per year. This evidence is relevant to establishing

A. Firm Standards of billable hours.

B. The kind of hours worked by the "stars" of the firm.

C. That the male workers in the firm were rewarded by being assigned to major cases and thus given the opportunity to progress and grow in their jobs.

D. All of the above.

7. During one such meeting, Mr. Max asked for a volunteer to work on a brief. Although Ms. Jane was the only associates to volunteer, and was initially assigned the case, within an hour Mr. Max, without explanation, had reassigned it to a male associate. This evidence is relevant to

A. Ms. Jane being a "brown noser."

B. Mr. Max having a very busy schedule.

C. Mr. Max displaying preferential treatment to a male associate over Ms.Jane, despite her best efforts to volunteer for work.

D. Mr. Max's state of mind towards Jane, in that he does not like her any more.

8. In a memorandum regarding the plaintiff dated June 19, 2002, Karl Kautsky, a partner, wrote on behalf of the Associates Committee: "Mary is a confident lawyer who is doing well at her level. She should be given every opportunity to display her intellectual ability." This evidence is relevant to

A. Ms. Jane's competence as an attorney.

B. The fact that the Associate's Committee performed regular reviews.

C. Whether later less favorable evaluations were adverse employment actionsMs. Jane's abilities to get along with senior attorneys.

D. All of the above.

9. During the meeting, Mr. Kautsky and Mr. Max made a commitment to the plaintiff that she would be assigned an appropriate mix of cases, reporting to a wider group of partners. Ms. Jane was told that she could not be properly evaluated because she had not had the opportunity to show her skills. This evidence is relevant to

A. Proving that the firm, with Kautsky and Max as agents knew that Ms. Jane was being discriminated against through the selection of cases.

B. Proving that the Firm made a commitment to change the selection of cases and thus the discriminatory treatment of Ms. Jane.

C. Proving that Ms. Jane was not sufficiently experienced so as to receivemore serious cases.

D. All of the above.

10. Many partners bypassed Mr. Max in selecting associates to work on their cases. Mr. Max, in permitting this activity to happen, prevented the plaintiff from securing improved assignments. This evidence is relevant to showing

A. That Mr. Max had some control over the partner-associate selection process, even if it was the kind of control evidenced by failing to take charge of a particular pattern of behavior.

B. That Ms. Jane did not get improved assignments.

C. That Mr. Max is an agent of the firm.

D. All of the above.