Solution Manual
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 The Regulation of Employment
Chapter 2 The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring
Legal Concepts
Chapter 3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Chapter 4 Legal Construction of the Employment Environment Chapter 5
Affirmative Action
Chapter 6 Race and Color Discrimination
Chapter 7 National Origin Discrimination
Chapter 8 Gender Discrimination Chapter 9
Sexual Harassment
Chapter 10 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Chapter 11
Religious Discrimination
Chapter 12 Age Discrimination Chapter 13
Disability Discrimination
Chapter 14 The Employee’s Right to Privacy and Management of Personal
Information
Chapter 15 Labor Law 857
Chapter 16 Selected Employment Benefits and Protections
Chapter 1
, The Regulation of Employment
Chapter Objective
The student is introduced to the regulatory environment of the employment relationship. The
chapter examines whether regulation is actually necessary or beneficial or if, perhaps, the
relationship would fare better with less governmental intervention. The concepts of ―freedom‖
to contract in the regulatory employment environment and non-compete agreements are
discussed. Since the regulations and case law discussed in this text rely on an individual‘s
classification as an employer or an employee, those definitions are delineated and explored.
Learning Objectives
(Click on the icon following the learning objective to be linked to the location in the outlinewhere
the chapter addresses that particular objective.)
At the conclusion of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Describe the balance between the freedom to contract and the current
regulatory environment for employment.
2. Identify who is subject to which employment laws and understand the implication of eachof
these laws for both the employer and employee.
3. Delineate the risks to the employer caused by employee misclassification.
4. Explain the difference between and employee and an independent contractor and the
tests that help us in that determination.
5. Articulate the various ways in which the concept ―employer‖ is defined by the
various employment-related regulations.
6. Describe the permissible parameters of non-compete agreements.
Detailed Chapter Outline
Scenarios—Points for Discussion
, Scenario One: sThis sscenario soffers san sopportunity sto sreview sthe sdistinctions sbetween san
s employee sand san sindependent scontractor sdiscussed sin sthe schapter s(see s―The sDefinition sof
s Employee,‖ sparticularly sExhibits s1.3–1.5). sDiscuss sthe sIRS s20-factor sanalysis, sas sit sapplies
sto s Dalia‘s sposition. sIn slight sof sthe slow slevel sof scontrol sthat sDalia shad sover sher sfees sand
sher swork s process, sand sthe slimits supon sher schoice sof sclients, sstudents sshould scome sto sthe
sconclusion sthat s Dalia sis san semployee s(therefore, seligible sto sfile san sunemployment sclaim),
srather sthan san s independent scontractor.
Scenario sTwo: sSoraya swould snot shave sa scause sof saction sthat swould sbe srecognized sby sthe
sEEOC. s Review sthe ssection s―The sDefinition sof s‗Employer‘‖ swith sstudents, sand sdiscuss sthe
srationale sthat s determines sthe sstatus sof sa ssupervisor svis-à-vis santi-discrimination slegislation.
sBecause sSoraya sis s Soraya‘s ssupervisor, snot sher semployer, she scannot sbe sthe starget sof san
sEEOC sclaim sof ssexual s harassment.
CCC, sSoraya‘s semployer, swould sbe svulnerable sto san sEEOC sclaim sif sthe scompany slacked sor
sfailedto s follow sa ssystem sfor semployee sredress sof sdiscrimination sgrievances. sHowever, sin sthis
scase, s CCC s appears sto shave sa sviable santi-discrimination spolicy sthat sit sadhered sto sdiligently;
s consequently, sSoraya s would sbe sunlikely sto swin sa sdecision sin sher sfavor. sThe scourt sin s Williams
sv. sBanning s(1995) soffered sthe s following srationale sfor sits sdecision sin sa ssimilar scase:
―She shas san semployer swho swas ssensitive sand sresponsive sto sher scomplaint. sShe scan
stake s comfort sin sthe sknowledge sthat sshe scontinues sto swork sfor sthis scompany, swhile
sher sharasser s does snot sand sthat sthe scompany's sprompt saction sis slikely sto sdiscourage
sother swould sbe s harassers. sThis sis sprecisely sthe sresult sTitle sVII swas smeant sto
sachieve.‖
Scenario sThree: sStudents sshould sdiscuss swhether sor snot sMya snon-compete sagreement sis slikely
stobe s found sreasonable sby sa scourt, sand selaborate sthe saspects sof sthe sagreement sthat sMya
smight scontest sas s unreasonable s(see ssection sbelow, s―Covenants sNot sto sCompete‖). sDoes sMya
shave sa spersuasive s argument sthat sthe sterms sof sher snon-compete sagreement sare sunreasonable
sin sscope sor sduration?
Might sshe shave sgrounds sto sclaim sthat sthe sagreement sprohibits sher sfrom smaking sa s living?
Given sthe sdiversity sof sstate slaws sregulating snon-compete sagreements, sdiscuss sthe srange sof
slegal s restrictions sthat smight sapply sto sMya‘s sparticular sagreement swith sher semployer. sAs san
semployeewho s works sacross sseveral sstates, sMya‘s sdefense smay sdepend supon sthe
spresence—and sspecific s language—of sa sforum sselection sclause sin sher snon-compete
sagreement. sConsider swhat slanguage s would sbe smore slikely sto sprovide sNan swith sa sstrong
sdefense sagainst sthe sbreach sof scontract sclaim.
Mya smight salso sargue sthat sthe scompany‘s sclient slist sis savailable sthrough spublic smeans, sand
s therefore, sher saccess sto sthis slist sshould snot sbe sprohibited.
General sLecture sNote sfor sEmployment sLaw sCourse
In sorder sto steach sthis scourse, sinstructors shave sfound sthat sstudents smust sbe smade sto sfeel
srelatively s comfortable swith stheir speers. sInstructors swill sbe sasking sthe sstudents sto sbe shonest
sand sto sstay sin s their struth, seven sat stimes swhen sthey sfeel sthat stheir sopinion son sone sof sthese
smatters swill snot sbe
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 The Regulation of Employment
Chapter 2 The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring
Legal Concepts
Chapter 3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Chapter 4 Legal Construction of the Employment Environment Chapter 5
Affirmative Action
Chapter 6 Race and Color Discrimination
Chapter 7 National Origin Discrimination
Chapter 8 Gender Discrimination Chapter 9
Sexual Harassment
Chapter 10 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Chapter 11
Religious Discrimination
Chapter 12 Age Discrimination Chapter 13
Disability Discrimination
Chapter 14 The Employee’s Right to Privacy and Management of Personal
Information
Chapter 15 Labor Law 857
Chapter 16 Selected Employment Benefits and Protections
Chapter 1
, The Regulation of Employment
Chapter Objective
The student is introduced to the regulatory environment of the employment relationship. The
chapter examines whether regulation is actually necessary or beneficial or if, perhaps, the
relationship would fare better with less governmental intervention. The concepts of ―freedom‖
to contract in the regulatory employment environment and non-compete agreements are
discussed. Since the regulations and case law discussed in this text rely on an individual‘s
classification as an employer or an employee, those definitions are delineated and explored.
Learning Objectives
(Click on the icon following the learning objective to be linked to the location in the outlinewhere
the chapter addresses that particular objective.)
At the conclusion of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Describe the balance between the freedom to contract and the current
regulatory environment for employment.
2. Identify who is subject to which employment laws and understand the implication of eachof
these laws for both the employer and employee.
3. Delineate the risks to the employer caused by employee misclassification.
4. Explain the difference between and employee and an independent contractor and the
tests that help us in that determination.
5. Articulate the various ways in which the concept ―employer‖ is defined by the
various employment-related regulations.
6. Describe the permissible parameters of non-compete agreements.
Detailed Chapter Outline
Scenarios—Points for Discussion
, Scenario One: sThis sscenario soffers san sopportunity sto sreview sthe sdistinctions sbetween san
s employee sand san sindependent scontractor sdiscussed sin sthe schapter s(see s―The sDefinition sof
s Employee,‖ sparticularly sExhibits s1.3–1.5). sDiscuss sthe sIRS s20-factor sanalysis, sas sit sapplies
sto s Dalia‘s sposition. sIn slight sof sthe slow slevel sof scontrol sthat sDalia shad sover sher sfees sand
sher swork s process, sand sthe slimits supon sher schoice sof sclients, sstudents sshould scome sto sthe
sconclusion sthat s Dalia sis san semployee s(therefore, seligible sto sfile san sunemployment sclaim),
srather sthan san s independent scontractor.
Scenario sTwo: sSoraya swould snot shave sa scause sof saction sthat swould sbe srecognized sby sthe
sEEOC. s Review sthe ssection s―The sDefinition sof s‗Employer‘‖ swith sstudents, sand sdiscuss sthe
srationale sthat s determines sthe sstatus sof sa ssupervisor svis-à-vis santi-discrimination slegislation.
sBecause sSoraya sis s Soraya‘s ssupervisor, snot sher semployer, she scannot sbe sthe starget sof san
sEEOC sclaim sof ssexual s harassment.
CCC, sSoraya‘s semployer, swould sbe svulnerable sto san sEEOC sclaim sif sthe scompany slacked sor
sfailedto s follow sa ssystem sfor semployee sredress sof sdiscrimination sgrievances. sHowever, sin sthis
scase, s CCC s appears sto shave sa sviable santi-discrimination spolicy sthat sit sadhered sto sdiligently;
s consequently, sSoraya s would sbe sunlikely sto swin sa sdecision sin sher sfavor. sThe scourt sin s Williams
sv. sBanning s(1995) soffered sthe s following srationale sfor sits sdecision sin sa ssimilar scase:
―She shas san semployer swho swas ssensitive sand sresponsive sto sher scomplaint. sShe scan
stake s comfort sin sthe sknowledge sthat sshe scontinues sto swork sfor sthis scompany, swhile
sher sharasser s does snot sand sthat sthe scompany's sprompt saction sis slikely sto sdiscourage
sother swould sbe s harassers. sThis sis sprecisely sthe sresult sTitle sVII swas smeant sto
sachieve.‖
Scenario sThree: sStudents sshould sdiscuss swhether sor snot sMya snon-compete sagreement sis slikely
stobe s found sreasonable sby sa scourt, sand selaborate sthe saspects sof sthe sagreement sthat sMya
smight scontest sas s unreasonable s(see ssection sbelow, s―Covenants sNot sto sCompete‖). sDoes sMya
shave sa spersuasive s argument sthat sthe sterms sof sher snon-compete sagreement sare sunreasonable
sin sscope sor sduration?
Might sshe shave sgrounds sto sclaim sthat sthe sagreement sprohibits sher sfrom smaking sa s living?
Given sthe sdiversity sof sstate slaws sregulating snon-compete sagreements, sdiscuss sthe srange sof
slegal s restrictions sthat smight sapply sto sMya‘s sparticular sagreement swith sher semployer. sAs san
semployeewho s works sacross sseveral sstates, sMya‘s sdefense smay sdepend supon sthe
spresence—and sspecific s language—of sa sforum sselection sclause sin sher snon-compete
sagreement. sConsider swhat slanguage s would sbe smore slikely sto sprovide sNan swith sa sstrong
sdefense sagainst sthe sbreach sof scontract sclaim.
Mya smight salso sargue sthat sthe scompany‘s sclient slist sis savailable sthrough spublic smeans, sand
s therefore, sher saccess sto sthis slist sshould snot sbe sprohibited.
General sLecture sNote sfor sEmployment sLaw sCourse
In sorder sto steach sthis scourse, sinstructors shave sfound sthat sstudents smust sbe smade sto sfeel
srelatively s comfortable swith stheir speers. sInstructors swill sbe sasking sthe sstudents sto sbe shonest
sand sto sstay sin s their struth, seven sat stimes swhen sthey sfeel sthat stheir sopinion son sone sof sthese
smatters swill snot sbe
