Reference no: EM133193264

Question: After graduating from college with a bachelor's degree in business administration, Emily sent an email, with her resume attached, to the Melica Marketing Company (MMC). In her email, she was only inquiring about an entry level position at the firm. When she found out that MMC had hired two of her classmates who were not of her race, Emily filed a discrimination complaint against MMC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Which of the following is true of this scenario?

Emily has a good case against MMC because her email was clear that she was interested in the entry level position at the firm, and they did not even consider her.

Emily does not have a valid case because employment laws do not permit people to apply for a job via the Internet or related electronic data technologies.

Emily does not have a valid case because sending an email inquiry about a job does not qualify the sender as an applicant.
Emily would have had a valid case against MMC had she submitted her resume via a third-party job board.

Question
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 applies to:
all employers with 20 or more workers, excluding state and local government employers, employment agencies, and labor unions.
all employers with 15 or more workers, including state and local government employers, employment agencies, and labor unions.
Indian tribes and bona fide private membership clubs.
corporations fully owned by the U.S government and the executive agencies of the U.S government.

Question
The most important difference between public and private collective bargaining is that:
federal legislation and most state statutes do not contain the right of public employees to strike.
federal employees cannot bargain about the numbers, types, and grades of positions and procedures for performing work or exercising authority.
federal employees cannot bargain about the alternatives for employees harmed by management decisions.
federal employees alone are allowed to bargain over wages, hours, and benefits, while private employees cannot.

Question
To hold an employer liable for racial harassment, an employee must show that:
the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
he or she is a member of a protected class.
the harassment involved physical abuse.
he or she has been working for the employer for more than five years.

Question
Affirmative action is used only when there is:
an undoubted reason to raise the bona fide occupational qualification defense.
a demonstrated under-representation of women and minorities in the workplace.
a need to improve workplace productivity and efficiency.
a need to punish someone for employment discrimination.

Question
The police chief of the city of Grande Coast reassigns female patrol officers away from high crime areas because people living in such areas do not want female officers guarding them. They feel that female officers are not capable of performing their duties as efficiently as male officers. The female police officers of Grande Coast:
can bring an action for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as customer preference is not a protected reason to discriminate.
cannot bring an action for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the chief's suggestion is intended to protect the safety of female officers.
cannot bring an action for gender discrimination as employees working for the government are not covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
can bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if the transfer results in a pay difference between male and female officers.

Question
Katie is a qualified carpenter who works for Kent Construction Inc. Kent Construction is losing business as most clients do not like the idea of female construction workers working on their project. They often complain that they cannot trust the work of a female employee. On this basis, Kent Construction fires Katie. Which of the following statements is true in this situation?
Kent Construction is not liable for gender discrimination because of the business necessity defense.
Kent Construction is not liable for gender discrimination as it can use the bona fide occupational qualification defense.
Kent Construction is liable for gender discrimination as customer preference is not a legitimate reason to discriminate against employees.
Kent Construction is liable for gender discrimination because Katie was hired for a job that requires being male as a bona fide occupational qualification.

Question
Judicial affirmative action is imposed by the courts when:
there is workplace discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and an affirmative action plan is the appropriate means of redress.
there is a requirement for federal contractors with 15 or more employees and a contract of $10,000 or more to comply with Executive Order 11246.
voluntary affirmative action plans result in reverse discrimination.
employees file a discrimination claim with the Office of Federal Contract CompliancePrograms (OFCCP).

Question
A local TV station has an opening for an evening sportscaster. Yvonne, a recent graduate with a degree in broadcast journalism, applies for the job. She is not hired on the basis that the job is restricted to men, as it involves interviewing players on high school football teams, which requires the sportscaster to spend a lot of time in the men's locker rooms.
Yvonne has no claim for gender discrimination because the TV station has a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its job requirement.
Yvonne has a valid gender discrimination claim, and the bona fide occupational qualification defense cannot be used because players can be interviewed outside the locker room.
Yvonne has no claim for gender discrimination because private employers are allowed to hire and terminate per their will.
Yvonne has a valid claim for gender discrimination if she can prove that the TV station has hired women for other roles that can be performed by men.

Question
Harry and Sandra work on the same team for Chemvo Chemical Supply Company. They were both busy over the weekend for different reasons and failed to show up to work the next day. When they returned to work, Harry was only given a verbal warning but Sandra was terminated. Which of the following statements is true in this situation?
Sandra has a claim for gender discrimination as it is illegal to discipline one gender for an act for which the other gender is not disciplined.
Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if Harry belongs to a protected class.
Sandra does not have a claim for gender discrimination because of the privileges available to employers under the employee-at-will doctrine.
Sandra has a gender discrimination claim only if she has more seniority than Harry at work.

Question
Lucia, an electronics assembler at Universal Industries Factory, is sexually propositioned by Mark, who is the head of the quality control department. Upon Lucia's refusal, Mark starts finding fault with the quality of her work, and she is eventually demoted. Lucia believes that if she complains against Mark to the company's management, no action will be taken against him because of his reputation with senior management. Though Universal Industries has a sexual harassment policy in place, Lucia does not use it. Instead, she files a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Which of the following holds true in this case?
Universal Industries will be liable to Lucia for quid pro quo sexual harassment for the acts of its supervisor Mark.
Universal Industries will not be liable to Lucia for quid pro quo sexual harassment because Mark is only a supervisor and not the owner.
Universal Industries will be liable to Lucia for quid pro quo sexual harassment only if it knew about Mark's actions and failed to take any action against him.
Universal Industries will not be liable to Lucia because she failed to use the company's sexual harassment policy.

Question
Eric and Jessica are hired as coaches at Herbert High School in the same year. Each has a bachelor's degree in physical education, and neither has prior teaching experience. Eric coaches the boys' basketball team, and Jessica coaches the girls' basketball team. Both of the teams are trained to compete at the state level. However, Eric's salary as a coach is higher than Jessica's salary. Jessica complains that her pay is discriminatory. Which of the following statements is true in this scenario?
Jessica cannot prevail under the Equal Pay Act because statistically more boys grow up to play sports professionally than girls.
Jessica cannot prevail under the Equal Pay Act as the act does not cover employees working for government employers such as a public school.
Jessica can prevail under the Equal Pay Act only if she can show that Eric's and her job titles are the same.
Jessica can prevail under the Equal Pay Act as her job is substantially equal to Eric's.

Question
Harold, a black man, worked for Alegius Financial Services as a sales representative. On three separate occasions over a period of six months, an anonymous co-worker left racist literature on the desks of all of the employees, including the supervisors'. Also, on the first working day of every month, the employees and the supervisors would receive a link to a hate-based website from an unknown e-mail address. Harold did not raise an issue in his office. Instead, he filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and later sued Alegius for racial harassment. Which of the following holds true in this scenario?
Harold will lose his case because he was not directly subjected to the racial harassment.
Harold will lose his case because he did not give his employer an opportunity to investigate the incident.
Harold will win his case because the employer has violated a bona fide occupational qualification.
Harold will win his case because the employer was aware of the racially harassing behavior, yet no discipline was imposed.

Question
Big Time Manufacturing Inc. was targeted for a union campaign. The union organizers contacted Walter, a bend employee, to assist them in the process of unionization. When management at Big Time came to know that Walter was working with the union organizers, they fired Walter. They also instituted a new rule requiring employees to leave company property within 15 minutes after the end of their shift unless speaking with a member of management. Which of the following statements is most likely to be true in this case?
Walter has no recourse because he is an employee-at-will at Big Time.
Big Time has committed an unfair labor practice because it discriminated against Walter for assisting the union.
Big Time has not committed an unfair labor practice because the company had not started the negotiation process with the union at the time when Walter was fired.
Walter has violated his duty of fair representation toward Big Time.

Question
Jeremy, a freelance accountant, is hired by Ave Supermarket whenever there is some auditing work at the supermarket's back-end office. Jeremy is called to the office on a need basis and is paid $200 per day for his services. Which of the following is true of this scenario?
Ave Supermarket will need to withhold a certain percentage of Jeremy's wages for federal income tax purposes.
Jeremy cannot be held liable for any torts committed by him within the scope of the working relationship.
Ave Supermarket will be liable to Jeremy if he makes any discrimination or wrongful discharge claims.
Jeremy cannot claim for medical or retirement benefits from Ave Supermarket as he is an independent contractor.

Question
In an employment relationship, a non-compete agreement is enforceable:
when the agreement violates the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
when the employee receives something in exchange for the agreement.
when the competitor receives something in exchange for the agreement.
when the agreement is contrary to the public interest.

Question
When an employee alleges sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment, the:
harassment should be sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive working environment.
harassee needs to show that the employer was completely unaware of the sexually hostile work environment.
harassee, if male, needs to show that he belongs to a protected group.
harassment needs to only exist and need not be severe or extensive in nature to be found to be hostile.

Question
Marcus, a prolific shoe buyer, refuses to be assisted by male store clerks. The owner of Your Shoe Town, therefore, informs his staff that only female employees should attend to Marcus because he does not want to anger a patron of his store. One of the male clerks, Austen, believes that this is illegal gender discrimination. Also, since part of his incentive pay is based on meeting the monthly sales target, he feels that this policy illegally denies him the opportunity to earn incentives because of his gender. Is Austen correct?
Yes, because gender can never be a bona fide occupational qualification.
No, because gender-based customer preferences are legitimate business concerns.
Yes, because customer preference is not a legitimate and protected reason to treat otherwise-qualified employees differently based on gender.
No, because Your Shoe Town is a private employer, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to private employers.

Question
In a state with right-to-work laws, _____.
the union and employer agree that all members of the bargaining unit will join the union within a certain amount of time after becoming employed.
the union must still represent the employees despite their nonparticipation in the union as a part of the bargaining unit.
the persons who are already members of the union alone have the right to work for employers who have negotiated contracts with the union.
the union and employer may have as part of their collective bargaining agreement a provision for a union shop.

Question
Henry and Rochelle work in the claims department of an insurance company. On Rochelle's birthday, Henry stops by her cubicle and gives her a cupcake with a heart on the frosting and asks her out to dinner. Rochelle, having never spoken to Henry before, finds his actions strange and declines his offer. Henry does not make any more advances, but Rochelle finds him creepy whenever she sees him in the office. Which of the following holds true in this case?
Rochelle has a claim under quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Rochelle has a claim under hostile work environment sexual harassment.
Rochelle does not have a claim for sexual harassment because her claim would be based on one isolated incident that is not serious enough to warrant undue concern.
Rochelle does not have a claim because sexual harassment has to involve physical assault to be considered unlawful.

Question
Maxwell's interest in an intimate relationship with his supervisor, Gloria, was genuine in the beginning but later subsided. Gloria immediately ceased any pursuit of the relationship at that point. If Maxwell has a professional falling out with Gloria afterward, can he successfully assert that the behavior that occurred during his relationship with Gloria is evidence of sexual harassment?
No, because it was welcome behavior at the time it occurred.
No, because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects only female employees from harassment.
Yes, because any sexual behavior between members of the same workforce is legally sufficient to prove sexual harassment.
Yes, because the intent of the anti-sexual harassment law is to make the workplace devoid of sexuality.

Question
Frank, a maintenance worker at the Breakwater Swimming Club, is physically attracted to Brenda, one of the swimming instructors. Though Brenda has shown no interest in him, he has been stalking her, making lewd comments to her, and making sexual threats. Frank has been careful to keep his behavior very low profile. Brenda does not bring this matter up with the club's management but instead decides to quit her job and file a claim of sexual harassment against the club. Which of the following holds true in this scenario?
Breakwater Swimming Club will be liable for Frank's behavior, regardless of its ignorance of Frank's activities.
Breakwater Swimming Club can avoid liability if it can be shown that there was no way for it to be made aware that there was an issue resulting in the constructive discharge.
Breakwater Swimming Club will not be liable for Frank's behavior under any circumstances because private employers are not covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Breakwater Swimming Club will have a cause of action against Brenda if it can be shown that Frank only made threats but did not physically harass her.

Question
Which of the following statements is true of affirmative action?
Affirmative action requires employers to remove qualified whites and males from their jobs and give these jobs to minorities.
Workplace productivity and efficiency do not suffer under affirmative action plans.
Under affirmative action, an applicant can simply be a female or a minority to be placed in a job.
Minorities and females cannot be terminated from their jobs for any cause under affirmative action plans.

Question
Maya is claiming that she was subjected to racial harassment by her co-workers. To hold her employer liable for racial harassment, Maya must prove that:
the harassment was unwelcome and was based on race.
she is a member of a protected class or minority race.
the harassment was not just verbal.
she has the bona fide occupational qualification defense.

Question
Cordova has been involved in negotiations with the union representing her employees for over seven months. An agreement has not been reached on any issue although Cordova has made concessions from her original position. She is unwilling to make further concessions. If no agreement is reached within a reasonable amount of time:
Cordova will be liable for having committed an unfair labor practice because the law expects her to make maximum concessions before giving up on the agreement.
the Norris-LaGuardia Act permits the union to impose terms and conditions substantially similar to those enjoyed by similarly situated workers.
Cordova will not be liable for having committed an unfair labor practice because the law does not require that an agreement be reached, only that the parties bargain in good faith.
the National Labor Relations Act permits the National Labor Relations Board to impose terms and conditions substantially similar to those enjoyed by similarly situated workers.

Question
Sanah works as a salesperson at Ave's Garden Needs. While demonstrating to a customer how to use a hedge trimmer, she accidentally cuts the customer on the arm, requiring a visit to the hospital and several stitches. Which of the following is true of the scenario?
Ave's Garden Needs is not vicariously liable because it was an accident.
Ave's Garden Needs is vicariously liable because Sanah was not acting within the course of employment.
Ave's Garden Needs is not vicariously liable because Sanah was not acting within the course of employment.
Ave's Garden Needs is vicariously liable because Sanah was acting within the course of employment.

Question
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
prohibits individuals with temporary or permanent disabilities from seeking employment.
prohibits discrimination in employment based on specified protected class.
applies to government-owned corporations.
applies to bona fide private membership clubs.

Question
Which of the following is the first of the prohibited categories in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Discrimination based on economic class
Discrimination based on gender
Discrimination based on race
Discrimination based on social status

Question
The dress code for Upper Edge Cosmetics requires all employees to report to work in uniforms. The policy also states that female employees are required to wear makeup. However, the only requirement for men is that they keep their hair and nails trimmed. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, female employees at Upper Edge Cosmetics:
do not have a valid discrimination claim because the act does not prohibit an employer from using gender as a basis for reasonable grooming codes.
do not have a valid discrimination claim because the act does not cover private employers.
have a valid discrimination claim because the dress code results in disparate impact against them.
have a valid discrimination claim because the difference in attire is based on gender and has no business necessity.

Question
During a unionizing campaign, an employer is prohibited from:
trying to help employees form a union.
sending letters to employees' homes.
telling employees how good the company's working conditions are.
giving pay raises or benefits to all workers.