Reference no: EM132308382
1. Harassment of an individual by someone of the same gender is prohibited unless it can be shown that the discrimination was based on affinity orientation.
True
False
2. Dan has undergone gender reassignment surgery and is now a female. Dan is immediately fired. The firing is not protected under Title VII if the firing was due to the sex change but it is covered if the firing was because Dan is a female.
True
False
3. Regarding Title VII protection of transsexuals from employment discrimination:
A. the federal courts have recognized a cause of action based on the argument that the change of gender is a protected trait.
B. the federal courts have not recognized a cause of action based on the argument that the change of gender is a protected trait.
C. only state courts are allowed to apply Title VII to these cases.
D. such claims must be based upon the original gender of the plaintiff.
4. Paul is being subjected to severe, pervasive and unwelcome sexual behavior in the workplace, by Greg. Can Paul bring a successful suit against Greg, for sexual harassment, under Title VII?
A. Maybe. If the harassment can be shown to be based on sex, yes, but if the harassment is based on affinity orientation, no.
B. Yes, because same-sex sexual harassment is recognized in all federal jurisdictions.
C. No, because same-sex harassment is never covered under Title VII.
D. No, since men are not protected against sexual harassment, under Title VII.
5. Randy, a homosexual male, refuses to award Martin, a heterosexual, a well-deserved raise unless Martin will have sex with him. Martin refuses, and does not receive the raise. Martin brings a claim of sexual harassment against Randy on the grounds that Martin conditioned the raises of the men in his department on the granting of sexual favors, but did not similarly condition the raises of the women in his department:
A. Martin's success is assured because he is not a homosexual, and is therefore protected by Title VII.
B. Martin's claim must be dismissed on the ground that raises in compensation are not a condition of employment covered by Title VII.
C. Martin's success will depend on whether he can convince the court that he is not homosexual.
D. Martin's success will depend on whether his claim is based on sex or gender rather than affinity orientation.
6. A state constitution:
A. may prohibit the enactment of a state law designed to protect individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of affinity orientation, if the provision in the constitution is the result of a referendum.
B. may prohibit the enactment of a state law designed to protect individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of affinity orientation, if the prohibition is within the limits set by the EEOC for such provisions.
C. may not prohibit the enactment of a state law designed to protect individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of affinity orientation, on the grounds that such a prohibition violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, unless the state can show that the law bears a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose.
D. may not prohibit the enactment of a state law designed to protect individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of affinity orientation, on the grounds that such a prohibition violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
7. Ryan, a homosexual male, was recently appointed department head. Shortly thereafter, he demotes all of the men in his department to a status one grade lower than they occupied when Ryan was appointed department head. Mike, one of the demoted males, brings a claim of gender discrimination against Ryan on the grounds that Ryan demoted only men, and not women:
A. Mike's claim for non-harassment gender discrimination will be dismissed since Title VII does not protect same-sex discrimination.
B. Mike's claim raises only federal constitutional issues.
C. Mike must demonstrate that his affinity orientation is different from the orientation of Ryan, in order to survive a motion for summary judgment.
D. Mike's claim for non-harassment gender discrimination is cognizable in all federal circuits, since it does not involve affinity orientation harassment.
8. In states where same-sex marriage is not legal, a growing number of cities allow the registration of non-marital relationships between individuals, regardless of the genders of the individuals, known as:
A. gender dysphoria.
B. domestic orientation.
C. domestic partnership.
D. limited partnership.
9. Maria is a lesbian, working as a sales clerk in the shoe department of Banks Department Store. Frank, her supervisor, refuses to give her a raise unless she agrees to have sex with him. Maria refuses and is denied the raise. She thereafter brings a claim of sex discrimination against Frank. Her claim:
A. is not actionable, since homosexuals are not protected against discrimination by Title VII.
B. is actionable, since her her affinity orientation makes her more amenable to psychological injury.
C. is actionable, since the gravamen of her complaint is discrimination on the basis of her gender, not on the basis of her affinity orientation.
D. is not actionable. Harassment of a lesbian by a male is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as same-sex harassment, which is generally not a recognized claim.
10. Transsexualism is not a protected trait under Title VII, but gender dysphoria is protected under Title VII.
True
False