SolutionManualb
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
b b b b b
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
b b b b b
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
b b
Chapter b1 bThe bRegulation bof bEmployment
Chapter b2 bThe bEmployment bLaw bToolkit: bResources bfor bUnderstanding bthe bLaw b and bRecurring
bLegal bConcepts
Chapter b3 bTitle bVII bof bthe bCivil bRights bAct bof b1964
Chapter b4 bLegal bConstruction bof bthe bEmployment bEnvironment b Chapter b5
Affirmative bAction
b
Chapter b6 bRace band bColor bDiscrimination
b Chapter b7 bNational bOrigin bDiscrimination
b Chapter b8 bGender bDiscrimination b b Chapter b9
Sexual bHarassment
b
Chapter b10 bSexual bOrientation band bGender bIdentity bDiscrimination b Chapter b11
Religious bDiscrimination
b
Chapter b12 bAge bDiscrimination b Chapter b13
Disability bDiscrimination
b
Chapter b14 bThe bEmployee’s bRight bto bPrivacy band bManagement bof bPersonal
Information
Chapter b15 bLabor bLaw b857
Chapter b16 bSelected bEmployment bBenefits band bProtections
Chapter b1
, The bRegulation bof bEmployment
ChapterbObjective
The bstudent bis bintroduced bto bthe bregulatory benvironment bof bthe bemployment brelationship. bThe
b chapter bexamines bwhether bregulation bis bactually bnecessary bor bbeneficial bor bif, bperhaps, bthe
b relationship bwould bfare bbetter bwith bless bgovernmental bintervention. bThe bconcepts bof
b―freedom‖ bto b contract bin bthe bregulatory bemployment benvironment band bnon-compete
bagreements bare bdiscussed. b Since bthe bregulations band bcase blaw bdiscussed bin b this btext brely bon
b an b individual‘s bclassification b as b an b employer bor ban bemployee, bthose bdefinitions bare
bdelineated band bexplored.
LearningbObjectives
(Click bon bthe bicon bfollowing bthe blearning bobjective bto bbe blinked bto bthe blocation bin bthe boutlinewhere
bthe bchapter b addresses bthat bparticular bobjective.)
At bthe bconclusion bof bthis bchapter, bthe bstudents bshould bbe bable bto:
1. Describe bthe bbalance bbetween bthe bfreedom bto bcontract band bthe bcurrent
bregulatory b environment bfor bemployment. b
2. Identify bwho bis bsubject bto bwhich bemployment blaws band bunderstand bthe bimplication bof
beachof b these blaws bfor bboth bthe bemployer band bemployee. b
3. Delineate bthe brisks bto bthe bemployer bcaused bby bemployee bmisclassification. b
4. Explain bthe bdifference bbetween band bemployee band ban bindependent bcontractor band bthe
btests b that bhelp bus bin bthat bdetermination. b
5. Articulate bthe bvarious bways bin bwhich bthe bconcept b―employer‖ bis bdefined bby bthe
bvarious b employment-related bregulations. b
6. Describe bthe bpermissible bparameters bof bnon-compete bagreements. b
Detailed bChapter bOutline
Scenarios—Points bfor bDiscussion
, Scenario bOne: bThis bscenario boffers ban bopportunity bto breview bthe bdistinctions bbetween ban
b employee band ban bindependent bcontractor bdiscussed bin bthe bchapter b(see b―The bDefinition bof
b Employee,‖ bparticularly bExhibits b1.3–1.5). bDiscuss bthe b IRS b20-factor b analysis, bas bit bapplies bto
b Dalia‘s bposition. bIn blight bof bthe blow blevel bof bcontrol bthat bDalia bhad bover bher bfees band bher
bwork b process, band bthe blimits bupon bher bchoice bof bclients, bstudents bshould bcome bto bthe bconclusion
bthat b Dalia bis ban bemployee b(therefore, beligible bto bfile ban bunemployment bclaim), brather bthan
ban b independent bcontractor.
Scenario bTwo: bSoraya bwould bnot bhave ba bcause bof baction bthat bwould bbe brecognized bby bthe
bEEOC. b Review bthe bsection b―The bDefinition bof b‗Employer‘‖ bwith bstudents, band bdiscuss bthe
brationale bthat b determines bthe bstatus bof ba bsupervisor bvis-à-vis banti-discrimination blegislation.
bBecause bSoraya bis b Soraya‘s bsupervisor, bnot bher bemployer, bhe bcannot bbe bthe btarget bof ban
bEEOC bclaim b of bsexual b harassment.
CCC, bSoraya‘s bemployer, bwould bbe bvulnerable bto ban bEEOC bclaim bif bthe bcompany blacked bor
bfailedto b follow ba bsystem bfor bemployee bredress bof bdiscrimination bgrievances. bHowever, bin bthis
bcase, b CCC b appears bto bhave ba bviable banti-discrimination bpolicy bthat bit badhered bto bdiligently;
b consequently, bSoraya b would bbe bunlikely bto bwin ba bdecision bin bher bfavor. bThe bcourt bin b Williams bv.
bBanning b(1995) boffered bthe b following brationale bfor bits bdecision bin ba bsimilar bcase:
―She bhas ban bemployer bwho bwas bsensitive band bresponsive bto bher bcomplaint. bShe bcan btake
b comfort bin bthe bknowledge bthat bshe bcontinues bto bwork b for bthis bcompany, bwhile bher
bharasser b does bnot band bthat bthe bcompany's bprompt baction bis blikely bto bdiscourage bother
bwould bbe b harassers. bThis bis bprecisely bthe bresult bTitle bVII bwas bmeant bto bachieve.‖
Scenario bThree: bStudents bshould bdiscuss bwhether bor bnot bMya bnon-compete bagreement bis blikely
btobe b found breasonable bby ba bcourt, band belaborate bthe baspects bof bthe bagreement bthat bMya
bmight bcontest bas b unreasonable b(see bsection bbelow, b―Covenants bNot bto bCompete‖). bDoes bMya
bhave ba bpersuasive b argument bthat bthe bterms bof bher bnon-compete bagreement bare bunreasonable
bin bscope bor b duration?
Might bshe bhave bgrounds bto bclaim bthat bthe bagreement bprohibits bher bfrom bmaking ba b living?
Given bthe bdiversity bof bstate blaws bregulating bnon-compete bagreements, bdiscuss bthe brange bof
blegal b restrictions bthat bmight bapply bto bMya‘s bparticular bagreement bwith bher bemployer. bAs ban
bemployeewho b works bacross bseveral bstates, bMya‘s bdefense bmay bdepend bupon bthe bpresence—
and bspecific b language—of ba bforum bselection bclause bin bher bnon-compete bagreement. bConsider
bwhat blanguage b would bbe bmore blikely bto bprovide bNan bwith ba bstrong bdefense bagainst bthe
bbreach bof bcontract bclaim.
Mya bmight balso bargue bthat bthe bcompany‘s bclient blist bis bavailable bthrough bpublic bmeans, band
b therefore, bher baccess bto bthis blist bshould bnot bbe bprohibited.
General bLecture bNote bfor bEmployment bLaw bCourse
In border bto bteach bthis bcourse, binstructors bhave bfound bthat bstudents bmust bbe bmade bto bfeel
brelatively b comfortable bwith btheir bpeers. bInstructors bwill bbe basking bthe bstudents bto bbe bhonest
band bto bstay bin b their btruth, beven bat btimes bwhen bthey bfeel bthat btheir bopinion bon bone bof bthese
bmatters bwill bnot bbe
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
b b b b b
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
b b b b b
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
b b
Chapter b1 bThe bRegulation bof bEmployment
Chapter b2 bThe bEmployment bLaw bToolkit: bResources bfor bUnderstanding bthe bLaw b and bRecurring
bLegal bConcepts
Chapter b3 bTitle bVII bof bthe bCivil bRights bAct bof b1964
Chapter b4 bLegal bConstruction bof bthe bEmployment bEnvironment b Chapter b5
Affirmative bAction
b
Chapter b6 bRace band bColor bDiscrimination
b Chapter b7 bNational bOrigin bDiscrimination
b Chapter b8 bGender bDiscrimination b b Chapter b9
Sexual bHarassment
b
Chapter b10 bSexual bOrientation band bGender bIdentity bDiscrimination b Chapter b11
Religious bDiscrimination
b
Chapter b12 bAge bDiscrimination b Chapter b13
Disability bDiscrimination
b
Chapter b14 bThe bEmployee’s bRight bto bPrivacy band bManagement bof bPersonal
Information
Chapter b15 bLabor bLaw b857
Chapter b16 bSelected bEmployment bBenefits band bProtections
Chapter b1
, The bRegulation bof bEmployment
ChapterbObjective
The bstudent bis bintroduced bto bthe bregulatory benvironment bof bthe bemployment brelationship. bThe
b chapter bexamines bwhether bregulation bis bactually bnecessary bor bbeneficial bor bif, bperhaps, bthe
b relationship bwould bfare bbetter bwith bless bgovernmental bintervention. bThe bconcepts bof
b―freedom‖ bto b contract bin bthe bregulatory bemployment benvironment band bnon-compete
bagreements bare bdiscussed. b Since bthe bregulations band bcase blaw bdiscussed bin b this btext brely bon
b an b individual‘s bclassification b as b an b employer bor ban bemployee, bthose bdefinitions bare
bdelineated band bexplored.
LearningbObjectives
(Click bon bthe bicon bfollowing bthe blearning bobjective bto bbe blinked bto bthe blocation bin bthe boutlinewhere
bthe bchapter b addresses bthat bparticular bobjective.)
At bthe bconclusion bof bthis bchapter, bthe bstudents bshould bbe bable bto:
1. Describe bthe bbalance bbetween bthe bfreedom bto bcontract band bthe bcurrent
bregulatory b environment bfor bemployment. b
2. Identify bwho bis bsubject bto bwhich bemployment blaws band bunderstand bthe bimplication bof
beachof b these blaws bfor bboth bthe bemployer band bemployee. b
3. Delineate bthe brisks bto bthe bemployer bcaused bby bemployee bmisclassification. b
4. Explain bthe bdifference bbetween band bemployee band ban bindependent bcontractor band bthe
btests b that bhelp bus bin bthat bdetermination. b
5. Articulate bthe bvarious bways bin bwhich bthe bconcept b―employer‖ bis bdefined bby bthe
bvarious b employment-related bregulations. b
6. Describe bthe bpermissible bparameters bof bnon-compete bagreements. b
Detailed bChapter bOutline
Scenarios—Points bfor bDiscussion
, Scenario bOne: bThis bscenario boffers ban bopportunity bto breview bthe bdistinctions bbetween ban
b employee band ban bindependent bcontractor bdiscussed bin bthe bchapter b(see b―The bDefinition bof
b Employee,‖ bparticularly bExhibits b1.3–1.5). bDiscuss bthe b IRS b20-factor b analysis, bas bit bapplies bto
b Dalia‘s bposition. bIn blight bof bthe blow blevel bof bcontrol bthat bDalia bhad bover bher bfees band bher
bwork b process, band bthe blimits bupon bher bchoice bof bclients, bstudents bshould bcome bto bthe bconclusion
bthat b Dalia bis ban bemployee b(therefore, beligible bto bfile ban bunemployment bclaim), brather bthan
ban b independent bcontractor.
Scenario bTwo: bSoraya bwould bnot bhave ba bcause bof baction bthat bwould bbe brecognized bby bthe
bEEOC. b Review bthe bsection b―The bDefinition bof b‗Employer‘‖ bwith bstudents, band bdiscuss bthe
brationale bthat b determines bthe bstatus bof ba bsupervisor bvis-à-vis banti-discrimination blegislation.
bBecause bSoraya bis b Soraya‘s bsupervisor, bnot bher bemployer, bhe bcannot bbe bthe btarget bof ban
bEEOC bclaim b of bsexual b harassment.
CCC, bSoraya‘s bemployer, bwould bbe bvulnerable bto ban bEEOC bclaim bif bthe bcompany blacked bor
bfailedto b follow ba bsystem bfor bemployee bredress bof bdiscrimination bgrievances. bHowever, bin bthis
bcase, b CCC b appears bto bhave ba bviable banti-discrimination bpolicy bthat bit badhered bto bdiligently;
b consequently, bSoraya b would bbe bunlikely bto bwin ba bdecision bin bher bfavor. bThe bcourt bin b Williams bv.
bBanning b(1995) boffered bthe b following brationale bfor bits bdecision bin ba bsimilar bcase:
―She bhas ban bemployer bwho bwas bsensitive band bresponsive bto bher bcomplaint. bShe bcan btake
b comfort bin bthe bknowledge bthat bshe bcontinues bto bwork b for bthis bcompany, bwhile bher
bharasser b does bnot band bthat bthe bcompany's bprompt baction bis blikely bto bdiscourage bother
bwould bbe b harassers. bThis bis bprecisely bthe bresult bTitle bVII bwas bmeant bto bachieve.‖
Scenario bThree: bStudents bshould bdiscuss bwhether bor bnot bMya bnon-compete bagreement bis blikely
btobe b found breasonable bby ba bcourt, band belaborate bthe baspects bof bthe bagreement bthat bMya
bmight bcontest bas b unreasonable b(see bsection bbelow, b―Covenants bNot bto bCompete‖). bDoes bMya
bhave ba bpersuasive b argument bthat bthe bterms bof bher bnon-compete bagreement bare bunreasonable
bin bscope bor b duration?
Might bshe bhave bgrounds bto bclaim bthat bthe bagreement bprohibits bher bfrom bmaking ba b living?
Given bthe bdiversity bof bstate blaws bregulating bnon-compete bagreements, bdiscuss bthe brange bof
blegal b restrictions bthat bmight bapply bto bMya‘s bparticular bagreement bwith bher bemployer. bAs ban
bemployeewho b works bacross bseveral bstates, bMya‘s bdefense bmay bdepend bupon bthe bpresence—
and bspecific b language—of ba bforum bselection bclause bin bher bnon-compete bagreement. bConsider
bwhat blanguage b would bbe bmore blikely bto bprovide bNan bwith ba bstrong bdefense bagainst bthe
bbreach bof bcontract bclaim.
Mya bmight balso bargue bthat bthe bcompany‘s bclient blist bis bavailable bthrough bpublic bmeans, band
b therefore, bher baccess bto bthis blist bshould bnot bbe bprohibited.
General bLecture bNote bfor bEmployment bLaw bCourse
In border bto bteach bthis bcourse, binstructors bhave bfound bthat bstudents bmust bbe bmade bto bfeel
brelatively b comfortable bwith btheir bpeers. bInstructors bwill bbe basking bthe bstudents bto bbe bhonest
band bto bstay bin b their btruth, beven bat btimes bwhen bthey bfeel bthat btheir bopinion bon bone bof bthese
bmatters bwill bnot bbe
