Instructor solution manual for employment law for business 10th edition Dawn Bennett-Alexander

SolutionManual
1




EmploymentLawforBusiness,10thEdition,
1 1 1 1 1




Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters1 - 16
1 1 1 1 1

,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: This scenario offers an opportunity to review the distinctions between an employee
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


and an independent contractor discussed in the chapter (see ―The Definition of Employee,‖ partic
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


ularly Exhibits 1.3–1.5). Discuss the IRS 20-
1 1 1 1 1 1


factor analysis, as it applies to Dalia‘s position. In light of the low level of control that Dalia had ov
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


er her fees and her work process, and the limits upon her choice of clients, students should come to t
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


he conclusion that Dalia is an employee (therefore, eligible to file an unemployment claim), rather
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


than an independent contractor.
1 1 1




Scenario Two: Soraya would not have a cause of action that would be recognized by the EEOC. R
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


eview the section ―The Definition of ‗Employer‘‖ with students, and discuss the rationale that deter
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


mines the status of a supervisor vis-à-vis anti-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1


discrimination legislation. Because Soraya is Soraya‘s supervisor, not her employer, he cannot be
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


the target of an EEOC claim of sexual harassment.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1




CCC, Soraya‘s employer, would be vulnerable to an EEOC claim if the company lacked or failedto f
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


ollow a system for employee redress of discrimination grievances. However, in this case, CCC appea
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


rs to have a viable anti-
1 1 1 1 1


discrimination policy that it adhered to diligently; consequently, Soraya would be unlikely to win a d
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


ecision in her favor. The court in Williams v. Banning (1995) offered the following rationale for its de
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


cision in a similar case:
1 1 1 1


―She has an employer who was sensitive and responsive to her complaint. She can take com
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


fort in the knowledge that she continues to work for this company, while her harasser does n
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


ot and that the company's prompt action is likely to discourage other would be harassers. T
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


his is precisely the result Title VII was meant to achieve.‖
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1




Scenario Three: Students should discuss whether or not Mya non-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


compete agreement is likely tobe found reasonable by a court, and elaborate the aspects of the ag
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


reement that Mya might contest as unreasonable (see section below, ―Covenants Not to Compete‖).
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


Does Mya have a persuasive argument that the terms of her non-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


compete agreement are unreasonable in scope or duration?
1 1 1 1 1 1 1


Might she have grounds to claim that the agreement prohibits her from making a living?
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1




Given the diversity of state laws regulating non-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1


compete agreements, discuss the range of legal restrictions that might apply to Mya‘s particular agr
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


eement with her employer. As an employeewho works across several states, Mya‘s defense may de
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


pend upon the presence—and specific language—of a forum selection clause in her non-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


compete agreement. Consider what language would be more likely to provide Nan with a strong de
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


fense against the breach of contract claim.
1 1 1 1 1 1




Mya might also argue that the company‘s client list is available through public means, and therefo
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


re, her access to this list should not be prohibited.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1




General Lecture Note for Employment Law Course
1 1 1 1 1 1




In order to teach this course, instructors have found that students must be made to feel relatively co
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


mfortable with their peers. Instructors will be asking the students to be honest and to stay in their tr
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


uth, even at times when they feel that their opinion on one of these matters will not be
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1