SolutionManualg
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
g g g g g
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
g g g g g
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
g g
Chapter g1 gThe gRegulation gof gEmployment
Chapter g2 gThe gEmployment gLaw gToolkit: gResources gfor gUnderstanding gthe gLaw g and gRecurring
gLegal gConcepts
Chapter g3 gTitle gVII gof gthe gCivil gRights gAct gof g1964
Chapter g4 gLegal gConstruction gof gthe gEmployment gEnvironment g Chapter g5
Affirmative gAction
g
Chapter g6 gRace gand gColor gDiscrimination
g Chapter g7 gNational gOrigin gDiscrimination
g Chapter g8 gGender gDiscrimination g g Chapter g9
Sexual gHarassment
g
Chapter g10 gSexual gOrientation gand gGender gIdentity gDiscrimination g Chapter g11
Religious gDiscrimination
g
Chapter g12 gAge gDiscrimination g Chapter g13
Disability gDiscrimination
g
Chapter g14 gThe gEmployee’s gRight gto gPrivacy gand gManagement gof gPersonal
Information
Chapter g15 gLabor gLaw g857
Chapter g16 gSelected gEmployment gBenefits gand gProtections
Chapter g1
, The gRegulation gof gEmployment
ChaptergObjective
The gstudent gis gintroduced gto gthe gregulatory genvironment gof gthe gemployment grelationship. gThe
g chapter gexamines gwhether gregulation gis gactually gnecessary gor gbeneficial gor gif, gperhaps, gthe
g relationship gwould gfare gbetter gwith gless ggovernmental gintervention. gThe gconcepts gof
g―freedom‖ gto g contract gin gthe gregulatory gemployment genvironment gand gnon-compete
gagreements gare gdiscussed. g Since gthe gregulations gand gcase glaw gdiscussed gin g this gtext grely gon
g an g individual‘s gclassification g as g an g employer gor gan gemployee, gthose gdefinitions gare
gdelineated gand gexplored.
LearninggObjectives
(Click gon gthe gicon gfollowing gthe glearning gobjective gto gbe glinked gto gthe glocation gin gthe
goutlinewhere gthe gchapter g addresses gthat gparticular gobjective.)
At gthe gconclusion gof gthis gchapter, gthe gstudents gshould gbe gable gto:
1. Describe gthe gbalance gbetween gthe gfreedom gto gcontract gand gthe gcurrent
gregulatory g environment gfor gemployment. g
2. Identify gwho gis gsubject gto gwhich gemployment glaws gand gunderstand gthe gimplication gof
geachof g these glaws gfor gboth gthe gemployer gand gemployee. g
3. Delineate gthe grisks gto gthe gemployer gcaused gby gemployee gmisclassification. g
4. Explain gthe gdifference gbetween gand gemployee gand gan gindependent gcontractor gand gthe
gtests g that ghelp gus gin gthat gdetermination. g
5. Articulate gthe gvarious gways gin gwhich gthe gconcept g―employer‖ gis gdefined gby gthe
gvarious g employment-related gregulations. g
6. Describe gthe gpermissible gparameters gof gnon-compete gagreements. g
Detailed gChapter gOutline
Scenarios—Points gfor gDiscussion
, Scenario gOne: gThis gscenario goffers gan gopportunity gto greview gthe gdistinctions gbetween gan
g employee gand gan gindependent gcontractor gdiscussed gin gthe gchapter g(see g―The gDefinition gof
g Employee,‖ gparticularly gExhibits g1.3–1.5). gDiscuss gthe g IRS g20-factor g analysis, gas git gapplies gto
g Dalia‘s gposition. gIn glight gof gthe glow glevel gof gcontrol gthat gDalia ghad gover gher gfees gand gher
gwork g process, gand gthe glimits gupon gher gchoice gof gclients, gstudents gshould gcome gto gthe gconclusion
gthat g Dalia gis gan gemployee g(therefore, geligible gto gfile gan gunemployment gclaim), grather gthan
gan g independent gcontractor.
Scenario gTwo: gSoraya gwould gnot ghave ga gcause gof gaction gthat gwould gbe grecognized gby gthe
gEEOC. g Review gthe gsection g―The gDefinition gof g‗Employer‘‖ gwith gstudents, gand gdiscuss gthe
grationale gthat g determines gthe gstatus gof ga gsupervisor gvis-à-vis ganti-discrimination glegislation.
gBecause gSoraya gis g Soraya‘s gsupervisor, gnot gher gemployer, ghe gcannot gbe gthe gtarget gof gan
gEEOC gclaim g of gsexual g harassment.
CCC, gSoraya‘s gemployer, gwould gbe gvulnerable gto gan gEEOC gclaim gif gthe gcompany glacked gor
gfailedto g follow ga gsystem gfor gemployee gredress gof gdiscrimination ggrievances. gHowever, gin gthis
gcase, g CCC g appears gto ghave ga gviable ganti-discrimination gpolicy gthat git gadhered gto gdiligently;
g consequently, gSoraya g would gbe gunlikely gto gwin ga gdecision gin gher gfavor. gThe gcourt gin g Williams
gv. gBanning g(1995) goffered gthe g following grationale gfor gits gdecision gin ga gsimilar gcase:
―She ghas gan gemployer gwho gwas gsensitive gand gresponsive gto gher gcomplaint. gShe gcan gtake
g comfort gin gthe gknowledge gthat gshe gcontinues gto gwork g for gthis gcompany, gwhile gher
gharasser g does gnot gand gthat gthe gcompany's gprompt gaction gis glikely gto gdiscourage gother
gwould gbe g harassers. gThis gis gprecisely gthe gresult gTitle gVII gwas gmeant gto gachieve.‖
Scenario gThree: gStudents gshould gdiscuss gwhether gor gnot gMya gnon-compete gagreement gis glikely
gtobe g found greasonable gby ga gcourt, gand gelaborate gthe gaspects gof gthe gagreement gthat gMya
gmight gcontest gas g unreasonable g(see gsection gbelow, g―Covenants gNot gto gCompete‖). gDoes gMya
ghave ga gpersuasive g argument gthat gthe gterms gof gher gnon-compete gagreement gare gunreasonable
gin gscope gor g duration?
Might gshe ghave ggrounds gto gclaim gthat gthe gagreement gprohibits gher gfrom gmaking ga g living?
Given gthe gdiversity gof gstate glaws gregulating gnon-compete gagreements, gdiscuss gthe grange gof
glegal g restrictions gthat gmight gapply gto gMya‘s gparticular gagreement gwith gher gemployer. gAs gan
gemployeewho g works gacross gseveral gstates, gMya‘s gdefense gmay gdepend gupon gthe gpresence—
and gspecific g language—of ga gforum gselection gclause gin gher gnon-compete gagreement. gConsider
gwhat glanguage g would gbe gmore glikely gto gprovide gNan gwith ga gstrong gdefense gagainst gthe
gbreach gof gcontract gclaim.
Mya gmight galso gargue gthat gthe gcompany‘s gclient glist gis gavailable gthrough gpublic gmeans, gand
g therefore, gher gaccess gto gthis glist gshould gnot gbe gprohibited.
General gLecture gNote gfor gEmployment gLaw gCourse
In gorder gto gteach gthis gcourse, ginstructors ghave gfound gthat gstudents gmust gbe gmade gto gfeel
grelatively g comfortable gwith gtheir gpeers. gInstructors gwill gbe gasking gthe gstudents gto gbe ghonest
gand gto gstay gin g their gtruth, geven gat gtimes gwhen gthey gfeel gthat gtheir gopinion gon gone gof gthese
gmatters gwill gnot gbe
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
g g g g g
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
g g g g g
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
g g
Chapter g1 gThe gRegulation gof gEmployment
Chapter g2 gThe gEmployment gLaw gToolkit: gResources gfor gUnderstanding gthe gLaw g and gRecurring
gLegal gConcepts
Chapter g3 gTitle gVII gof gthe gCivil gRights gAct gof g1964
Chapter g4 gLegal gConstruction gof gthe gEmployment gEnvironment g Chapter g5
Affirmative gAction
g
Chapter g6 gRace gand gColor gDiscrimination
g Chapter g7 gNational gOrigin gDiscrimination
g Chapter g8 gGender gDiscrimination g g Chapter g9
Sexual gHarassment
g
Chapter g10 gSexual gOrientation gand gGender gIdentity gDiscrimination g Chapter g11
Religious gDiscrimination
g
Chapter g12 gAge gDiscrimination g Chapter g13
Disability gDiscrimination
g
Chapter g14 gThe gEmployee’s gRight gto gPrivacy gand gManagement gof gPersonal
Information
Chapter g15 gLabor gLaw g857
Chapter g16 gSelected gEmployment gBenefits gand gProtections
Chapter g1
, The gRegulation gof gEmployment
ChaptergObjective
The gstudent gis gintroduced gto gthe gregulatory genvironment gof gthe gemployment grelationship. gThe
g chapter gexamines gwhether gregulation gis gactually gnecessary gor gbeneficial gor gif, gperhaps, gthe
g relationship gwould gfare gbetter gwith gless ggovernmental gintervention. gThe gconcepts gof
g―freedom‖ gto g contract gin gthe gregulatory gemployment genvironment gand gnon-compete
gagreements gare gdiscussed. g Since gthe gregulations gand gcase glaw gdiscussed gin g this gtext grely gon
g an g individual‘s gclassification g as g an g employer gor gan gemployee, gthose gdefinitions gare
gdelineated gand gexplored.
LearninggObjectives
(Click gon gthe gicon gfollowing gthe glearning gobjective gto gbe glinked gto gthe glocation gin gthe
goutlinewhere gthe gchapter g addresses gthat gparticular gobjective.)
At gthe gconclusion gof gthis gchapter, gthe gstudents gshould gbe gable gto:
1. Describe gthe gbalance gbetween gthe gfreedom gto gcontract gand gthe gcurrent
gregulatory g environment gfor gemployment. g
2. Identify gwho gis gsubject gto gwhich gemployment glaws gand gunderstand gthe gimplication gof
geachof g these glaws gfor gboth gthe gemployer gand gemployee. g
3. Delineate gthe grisks gto gthe gemployer gcaused gby gemployee gmisclassification. g
4. Explain gthe gdifference gbetween gand gemployee gand gan gindependent gcontractor gand gthe
gtests g that ghelp gus gin gthat gdetermination. g
5. Articulate gthe gvarious gways gin gwhich gthe gconcept g―employer‖ gis gdefined gby gthe
gvarious g employment-related gregulations. g
6. Describe gthe gpermissible gparameters gof gnon-compete gagreements. g
Detailed gChapter gOutline
Scenarios—Points gfor gDiscussion
, Scenario gOne: gThis gscenario goffers gan gopportunity gto greview gthe gdistinctions gbetween gan
g employee gand gan gindependent gcontractor gdiscussed gin gthe gchapter g(see g―The gDefinition gof
g Employee,‖ gparticularly gExhibits g1.3–1.5). gDiscuss gthe g IRS g20-factor g analysis, gas git gapplies gto
g Dalia‘s gposition. gIn glight gof gthe glow glevel gof gcontrol gthat gDalia ghad gover gher gfees gand gher
gwork g process, gand gthe glimits gupon gher gchoice gof gclients, gstudents gshould gcome gto gthe gconclusion
gthat g Dalia gis gan gemployee g(therefore, geligible gto gfile gan gunemployment gclaim), grather gthan
gan g independent gcontractor.
Scenario gTwo: gSoraya gwould gnot ghave ga gcause gof gaction gthat gwould gbe grecognized gby gthe
gEEOC. g Review gthe gsection g―The gDefinition gof g‗Employer‘‖ gwith gstudents, gand gdiscuss gthe
grationale gthat g determines gthe gstatus gof ga gsupervisor gvis-à-vis ganti-discrimination glegislation.
gBecause gSoraya gis g Soraya‘s gsupervisor, gnot gher gemployer, ghe gcannot gbe gthe gtarget gof gan
gEEOC gclaim g of gsexual g harassment.
CCC, gSoraya‘s gemployer, gwould gbe gvulnerable gto gan gEEOC gclaim gif gthe gcompany glacked gor
gfailedto g follow ga gsystem gfor gemployee gredress gof gdiscrimination ggrievances. gHowever, gin gthis
gcase, g CCC g appears gto ghave ga gviable ganti-discrimination gpolicy gthat git gadhered gto gdiligently;
g consequently, gSoraya g would gbe gunlikely gto gwin ga gdecision gin gher gfavor. gThe gcourt gin g Williams
gv. gBanning g(1995) goffered gthe g following grationale gfor gits gdecision gin ga gsimilar gcase:
―She ghas gan gemployer gwho gwas gsensitive gand gresponsive gto gher gcomplaint. gShe gcan gtake
g comfort gin gthe gknowledge gthat gshe gcontinues gto gwork g for gthis gcompany, gwhile gher
gharasser g does gnot gand gthat gthe gcompany's gprompt gaction gis glikely gto gdiscourage gother
gwould gbe g harassers. gThis gis gprecisely gthe gresult gTitle gVII gwas gmeant gto gachieve.‖
Scenario gThree: gStudents gshould gdiscuss gwhether gor gnot gMya gnon-compete gagreement gis glikely
gtobe g found greasonable gby ga gcourt, gand gelaborate gthe gaspects gof gthe gagreement gthat gMya
gmight gcontest gas g unreasonable g(see gsection gbelow, g―Covenants gNot gto gCompete‖). gDoes gMya
ghave ga gpersuasive g argument gthat gthe gterms gof gher gnon-compete gagreement gare gunreasonable
gin gscope gor g duration?
Might gshe ghave ggrounds gto gclaim gthat gthe gagreement gprohibits gher gfrom gmaking ga g living?
Given gthe gdiversity gof gstate glaws gregulating gnon-compete gagreements, gdiscuss gthe grange gof
glegal g restrictions gthat gmight gapply gto gMya‘s gparticular gagreement gwith gher gemployer. gAs gan
gemployeewho g works gacross gseveral gstates, gMya‘s gdefense gmay gdepend gupon gthe gpresence—
and gspecific g language—of ga gforum gselection gclause gin gher gnon-compete gagreement. gConsider
gwhat glanguage g would gbe gmore glikely gto gprovide gNan gwith ga gstrong gdefense gagainst gthe
gbreach gof gcontract gclaim.
Mya gmight galso gargue gthat gthe gcompany‘s gclient glist gis gavailable gthrough gpublic gmeans, gand
g therefore, gher gaccess gto gthis glist gshould gnot gbe gprohibited.
General gLecture gNote gfor gEmployment gLaw gCourse
In gorder gto gteach gthis gcourse, ginstructors ghave gfound gthat gstudents gmust gbe gmade gto gfeel
grelatively g comfortable gwith gtheir gpeers. gInstructors gwill gbe gasking gthe gstudents gto gbe ghonest
gand gto gstay gin g their gtruth, geven gat gtimes gwhen gthey gfeel gthat gtheir gopinion gon gone gof gthese
gmatters gwill gnot gbe
