Solution Manual
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter v1 vThe vRegulation vof vEmployment
Chapter v2 vThe vEmployment vLaw vToolkit: vResources vfor vUnderstanding vthe vLaw v and
vRecurring vLegal vConcepts
Chapter v3 vTitle vVII vof vthe vCivil vRights vAct vof v1964
Chapter v4 vLegal vConstruction vof vthe vEmployment vEnvironment v Chapter v5
vAffirmative vAction
Chapter v6 vRace vand vColor vDiscrimination
v Chapter v7 vNational vOrigin vDiscrimination
v Chapter v8 vGender vDiscrimination v v Chapter v9
vSexual vHarassment
Chapter v10 vSexual vOrientation vand vGender vIdentity vDiscrimination v Chapter v11
vReligious vDiscrimination
Chapter v12 vAge vDiscrimination v Chapter v13
vDisability vDiscrimination
Chapter v14 vThe vEmployee’s vRight vto vPrivacy vand vManagement vof vPersonal
Information
Chapter v15 vLabor vLaw v857
Chapter v16 vSelected vEmployment vBenefits vand vProtections
Chapter v1
, The vRegulation vof vEmployment
Chapter vObjective
The vstudent vis vintroduced vto vthe vregulatory venvironment vof vthe vemployment vrelationship.
vThe v chapter vexamines vwhether vregulation vis vactually vnecessary vor vbeneficial vor vif,
vperhaps, vthe v relationship vwould vfare vbetter vwith vless vgovernmental vintervention. vThe
vconcepts vof v―freedom‖ vto v contract vin vthe vregulatory vemployment venvironment vand vnon-
compete vagreements vare vdiscussed. v Since vthe vregulations vand vcase vlaw vdiscussed vin vthis
vtext vrely von van vindividual‘s vclassification vas v an v employer vor van vemployee, vthose
vdefinitions vare vdelineated vand vexplored.
Learning vObjectives
(Click von vthe vicon vfollowing vthe vlearning vobjective vto vbe vlinked vto vthe vlocation vin vthe
voutlinewhere vthe vchapter v addresses vthat vparticular vobjective.)
At vthe vconclusion vof vthis vchapter, vthe vstudents vshould vbe vable vto:
1. Describe vthe vbalance vbetween vthe vfreedom vto vcontract vand vthe vcurrent
vregulatory v environment vfor vemployment. v
2. Identify vwho vis vsubject vto vwhich vemployment vlaws vand vunderstand vthe vimplication vof
veachof v these vlaws vfor vboth vthe vemployer vand vemployee. v
3. Delineate vthe vrisks vto vthe vemployer vcaused vby vemployee vmisclassification. v
4. Explain vthe vdifference vbetween vand vemployee vand van vindependent vcontractor vand
vthe vtests v that vhelp vus vin vthat vdetermination. v
5. Articulate vthe vvarious vways vin vwhich vthe vconcept v―employer‖ vis vdefined vby vthe
vvarious v employment-related vregulations. v
6. Describe vthe vpermissible vparameters vof vnon-compete vagreements. v
Detailed vChapter vOutline
Scenarios—Points vfor vDiscussion
, Scenario vOne: vThis vscenario voffers van vopportunity vto vreview vthe vdistinctions vbetween van
v employee vand van vindependent vcontractor vdiscussed vin vthe vchapter v(see v―The vDefinition vof
v Employee,‖ vparticularly vExhibits v1.3–1.5). vDiscuss vthe vIRS v20-factor vanalysis, vas vit
vapplies vto v Dalia‘s vposition. vIn vlight vof vthe vlow vlevel vof vcontrol vthat vDalia vhad vover vher
vfees vand vher vwork v process, vand vthe vlimits vupon vher vchoice vof vclients, vstudents vshould
vcome vto vthe vconclusion vthat v Dalia vis van vemployee v(therefore, veligible vto vfile van
vunemployment vclaim), vrather vthan van v independent vcontractor.
Scenario vTwo: vSoraya vwould vnot vhave va vcause vof vaction vthat vwould vbe vrecognized vby
vthe vEEOC. v Review vthe vsection v―The vDefinition vof v‗Employer‘‖ vwith vstudents, vand vdiscuss
vthe vrationale vthat v determines vthe vstatus vof va vsupervisor vvis-à-vis vanti-discrimination
vlegislation. vBecause vSoraya vis v Soraya‘s vsupervisor, vnot vher vemployer, vhe vcannot vbe vthe
vtarget vof van vEEOC vclaim vof vsexual v harassment.
CCC, vSoraya‘s vemployer, vwould vbe vvulnerable vto van vEEOC vclaim vif vthe vcompany vlacked vor
vfailedto v follow va vsystem vfor vemployee vredress vof vdiscrimination vgrievances. vHowever, vin
vthis vcase, v CCC v appears vto vhave va vviable vanti-discrimination vpolicy vthat vit vadhered vto
vdiligently; v consequently, vSoraya v would vbe vunlikely vto vwin va vdecision vin vher vfavor. vThe
vcourt vin vWilliams vv. vBanning v(1995) voffered vthe v following vrationale vfor vits vdecision vin va
vsimilar vcase:
―She vhas van vemployer vwho vwas vsensitive vand vresponsive vto vher vcomplaint. vShe vcan
vtake v comfort vin vthe vknowledge vthat vshe vcontinues vto vwork vfor vthis vcompany, vwhile
vher vharasser v does vnot vand vthat vthe vcompany's vprompt vaction vis vlikely vto
vdiscourage vother vwould vbe v harassers. vThis vis vprecisely vthe vresult vTitle vVII vwas
vmeant vto vachieve.‖
Scenario vThree: vStudents vshould vdiscuss vwhether vor vnot vMya vnon-compete vagreement vis vlikely
vtobe v found vreasonable vby va vcourt, vand velaborate vthe vaspects vof vthe vagreement vthat
vMya vmight vcontest vas v unreasonable v(see vsection vbelow, v―Covenants vNot vto vCompete‖).
vDoes vMya vhave va vpersuasive v argument vthat vthe vterms vof vher vnon-compete vagreement vare
vunreasonable vin vscope vor vduration?
Might vshe vhave vgrounds vto vclaim vthat vthe vagreement vprohibits vher vfrom vmaking va v living?
Given vthe vdiversity vof vstate vlaws vregulating vnon-compete vagreements, vdiscuss vthe vrange vof
vlegal v restrictions vthat vmight vapply vto vMya‘s vparticular vagreement vwith vher vemployer. vAs
van vemployeewho v works vacross vseveral vstates, vMya‘s vdefense vmay vdepend vupon vthe
vpresence—and vspecific v language—of va vforum vselection vclause vin vher vnon-compete
vagreement. vConsider vwhat vlanguage v would vbe vmore vlikely vto vprovide vNan vwith va vstrong
vdefense vagainst vthe vbreach vof vcontract vclaim.
Mya vmight valso vargue vthat vthe vcompany‘s vclient vlist vis vavailable vthrough vpublic vmeans,
vand v therefore, vher vaccess vto vthis vlist vshould vnot vbe vprohibited.
General vLecture vNote vfor vEmployment vLaw vCourse
In vorder vto vteach vthis vcourse, vinstructors vhave vfound vthat vstudents vmust vbe vmade vto vfeel
vrelatively v comfortable vwith vtheir vpeers. vInstructors vwill vbe vasking vthe vstudents vto vbe
vhonest vand vto vstay vin v their vtruth, veven vat vtimes vwhen vthey vfeel vthat vtheir vopinion von
vone vof vthese vmatters vwill vnot vbe
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter v1 vThe vRegulation vof vEmployment
Chapter v2 vThe vEmployment vLaw vToolkit: vResources vfor vUnderstanding vthe vLaw v and
vRecurring vLegal vConcepts
Chapter v3 vTitle vVII vof vthe vCivil vRights vAct vof v1964
Chapter v4 vLegal vConstruction vof vthe vEmployment vEnvironment v Chapter v5
vAffirmative vAction
Chapter v6 vRace vand vColor vDiscrimination
v Chapter v7 vNational vOrigin vDiscrimination
v Chapter v8 vGender vDiscrimination v v Chapter v9
vSexual vHarassment
Chapter v10 vSexual vOrientation vand vGender vIdentity vDiscrimination v Chapter v11
vReligious vDiscrimination
Chapter v12 vAge vDiscrimination v Chapter v13
vDisability vDiscrimination
Chapter v14 vThe vEmployee’s vRight vto vPrivacy vand vManagement vof vPersonal
Information
Chapter v15 vLabor vLaw v857
Chapter v16 vSelected vEmployment vBenefits vand vProtections
Chapter v1
, The vRegulation vof vEmployment
Chapter vObjective
The vstudent vis vintroduced vto vthe vregulatory venvironment vof vthe vemployment vrelationship.
vThe v chapter vexamines vwhether vregulation vis vactually vnecessary vor vbeneficial vor vif,
vperhaps, vthe v relationship vwould vfare vbetter vwith vless vgovernmental vintervention. vThe
vconcepts vof v―freedom‖ vto v contract vin vthe vregulatory vemployment venvironment vand vnon-
compete vagreements vare vdiscussed. v Since vthe vregulations vand vcase vlaw vdiscussed vin vthis
vtext vrely von van vindividual‘s vclassification vas v an v employer vor van vemployee, vthose
vdefinitions vare vdelineated vand vexplored.
Learning vObjectives
(Click von vthe vicon vfollowing vthe vlearning vobjective vto vbe vlinked vto vthe vlocation vin vthe
voutlinewhere vthe vchapter v addresses vthat vparticular vobjective.)
At vthe vconclusion vof vthis vchapter, vthe vstudents vshould vbe vable vto:
1. Describe vthe vbalance vbetween vthe vfreedom vto vcontract vand vthe vcurrent
vregulatory v environment vfor vemployment. v
2. Identify vwho vis vsubject vto vwhich vemployment vlaws vand vunderstand vthe vimplication vof
veachof v these vlaws vfor vboth vthe vemployer vand vemployee. v
3. Delineate vthe vrisks vto vthe vemployer vcaused vby vemployee vmisclassification. v
4. Explain vthe vdifference vbetween vand vemployee vand van vindependent vcontractor vand
vthe vtests v that vhelp vus vin vthat vdetermination. v
5. Articulate vthe vvarious vways vin vwhich vthe vconcept v―employer‖ vis vdefined vby vthe
vvarious v employment-related vregulations. v
6. Describe vthe vpermissible vparameters vof vnon-compete vagreements. v
Detailed vChapter vOutline
Scenarios—Points vfor vDiscussion
, Scenario vOne: vThis vscenario voffers van vopportunity vto vreview vthe vdistinctions vbetween van
v employee vand van vindependent vcontractor vdiscussed vin vthe vchapter v(see v―The vDefinition vof
v Employee,‖ vparticularly vExhibits v1.3–1.5). vDiscuss vthe vIRS v20-factor vanalysis, vas vit
vapplies vto v Dalia‘s vposition. vIn vlight vof vthe vlow vlevel vof vcontrol vthat vDalia vhad vover vher
vfees vand vher vwork v process, vand vthe vlimits vupon vher vchoice vof vclients, vstudents vshould
vcome vto vthe vconclusion vthat v Dalia vis van vemployee v(therefore, veligible vto vfile van
vunemployment vclaim), vrather vthan van v independent vcontractor.
Scenario vTwo: vSoraya vwould vnot vhave va vcause vof vaction vthat vwould vbe vrecognized vby
vthe vEEOC. v Review vthe vsection v―The vDefinition vof v‗Employer‘‖ vwith vstudents, vand vdiscuss
vthe vrationale vthat v determines vthe vstatus vof va vsupervisor vvis-à-vis vanti-discrimination
vlegislation. vBecause vSoraya vis v Soraya‘s vsupervisor, vnot vher vemployer, vhe vcannot vbe vthe
vtarget vof van vEEOC vclaim vof vsexual v harassment.
CCC, vSoraya‘s vemployer, vwould vbe vvulnerable vto van vEEOC vclaim vif vthe vcompany vlacked vor
vfailedto v follow va vsystem vfor vemployee vredress vof vdiscrimination vgrievances. vHowever, vin
vthis vcase, v CCC v appears vto vhave va vviable vanti-discrimination vpolicy vthat vit vadhered vto
vdiligently; v consequently, vSoraya v would vbe vunlikely vto vwin va vdecision vin vher vfavor. vThe
vcourt vin vWilliams vv. vBanning v(1995) voffered vthe v following vrationale vfor vits vdecision vin va
vsimilar vcase:
―She vhas van vemployer vwho vwas vsensitive vand vresponsive vto vher vcomplaint. vShe vcan
vtake v comfort vin vthe vknowledge vthat vshe vcontinues vto vwork vfor vthis vcompany, vwhile
vher vharasser v does vnot vand vthat vthe vcompany's vprompt vaction vis vlikely vto
vdiscourage vother vwould vbe v harassers. vThis vis vprecisely vthe vresult vTitle vVII vwas
vmeant vto vachieve.‖
Scenario vThree: vStudents vshould vdiscuss vwhether vor vnot vMya vnon-compete vagreement vis vlikely
vtobe v found vreasonable vby va vcourt, vand velaborate vthe vaspects vof vthe vagreement vthat
vMya vmight vcontest vas v unreasonable v(see vsection vbelow, v―Covenants vNot vto vCompete‖).
vDoes vMya vhave va vpersuasive v argument vthat vthe vterms vof vher vnon-compete vagreement vare
vunreasonable vin vscope vor vduration?
Might vshe vhave vgrounds vto vclaim vthat vthe vagreement vprohibits vher vfrom vmaking va v living?
Given vthe vdiversity vof vstate vlaws vregulating vnon-compete vagreements, vdiscuss vthe vrange vof
vlegal v restrictions vthat vmight vapply vto vMya‘s vparticular vagreement vwith vher vemployer. vAs
van vemployeewho v works vacross vseveral vstates, vMya‘s vdefense vmay vdepend vupon vthe
vpresence—and vspecific v language—of va vforum vselection vclause vin vher vnon-compete
vagreement. vConsider vwhat vlanguage v would vbe vmore vlikely vto vprovide vNan vwith va vstrong
vdefense vagainst vthe vbreach vof vcontract vclaim.
Mya vmight valso vargue vthat vthe vcompany‘s vclient vlist vis vavailable vthrough vpublic vmeans,
vand v therefore, vher vaccess vto vthis vlist vshould vnot vbe vprohibited.
General vLecture vNote vfor vEmployment vLaw vCourse
In vorder vto vteach vthis vcourse, vinstructors vhave vfound vthat vstudents vmust vbe vmade vto vfeel
vrelatively v comfortable vwith vtheir vpeers. vInstructors vwill vbe vasking vthe vstudents vto vbe
vhonest vand vto vstay vin v their vtruth, veven vat vtimes vwhen vthey vfeel vthat vtheir vopinion von
vone vof vthese vmatters vwill vnot vbe
