Solution Manual Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition, Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16 Complete Newest Version

Solution Manual Employment Law for Business, 10th
Edition, Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16

,TABLE OF CONTENTS
O O




ChapterO1OTheORegulationOofOEmployment

ChapterO2OTheOEmploymentOLawOToolkit:OResourcesOforOUnderstandingOtheOLawO andORecurringOL
egalOConcepts

ChapterO3OTitleOVIIOofOtheOCivilORightsOActOofO1964

ChapterO4OLegalOConstructionOofOtheOEmploymentOEnvironmentO ChapterO5OAffirmati

veOAction

ChapterO6ORaceOandOColorODiscriminationO Chapt

erO7ONationalOOriginODiscriminationO ChapterO8OG

enderODiscriminationOO ChapterO9OSexualOHarass

ment

ChapterO10OSexualOOrientationOandOGenderOIdentityODiscriminationO ChapterO11OR

eligiousODiscrimination

ChapterO12OAgeODiscriminationO ChapterO13O

DisabilityODiscrimination

ChapterO14OTheOEmployee’sORightOtoOPrivacyOandOManagementOofOPersonal
Information

ChapterO15OLaborOLawO857

ChapterO16OSelectedOEmploymentOBenefitsOandOProtections


ChapterO1

, TheORegulationOofOEmployment


ChapterOObjective

TheOstudentOisOintroducedOtoOtheOregulatoryOenvironmentOofOtheOemploymentOrelationship.OTheO c
hapterOexaminesOwhetherOregulationOisOactuallyOnecessaryOorObeneficialOorOif,Operhaps,OtheO rel
ationshipOwouldOfareObetterOwithOlessOgovernmentalOintervention.OTheOconceptsOofO―freedom‖Ot
oO contractOinOtheOregulatoryOemploymentOenvironmentOandOnon-
competeOagreementsOareOdiscussed.O SinceOtheOregulationsOandOcaseOlawOdiscussedOinOthisOtextO
relyOonOanOindividual‘sOclassificationOasO anO employerOorOanOemployee,OthoseOdefinitionsOareOd
elineatedOandOexplored.

LearningOObjectives

(ClickOonOtheOiconOfollowingOtheOlearningOobjectiveOtoObeOlinkedOtoOtheOlocationOinOtheOoutlinewhere
OtheOchapterO addressesOthatOparticularOobjective.)




AtOtheOconclusionOofOthisOchapter,OtheOstudentsOshouldObeOableOto:
1. DescribeOtheObalanceObetweenOtheOfreedomOtoOcontractOandOtheOcurrentOregulat
oryO environmentOforOemployment.O
2. IdentifyOwhoOisOsubjectOtoOwhichOemploymentOlawsOandOunderstandOtheOimplicationOofOeach
ofO theseOlawsOforObothOtheOemployerOandOemployee.O
3. DelineateOtheOrisksOtoOtheOemployerOcausedObyOemployeeOmisclassification.O
4. ExplainOtheOdifferenceObetweenOandOemployeeOandOanOindependentOcontractorOandOtheO
testsO thatOhelpOusOinOthatOdetermination.O
5. ArticulateOtheOvariousOwaysOinOwhichOtheOconceptO―employer‖OisOdefinedObyOtheOvari
ousO employment-relatedOregulations.O
6. DescribeOtheOpermissibleOparametersOofOnon-competeOagreements.O

DetailedOChapterOOutline

Scenarios—PointsOforODiscussion

, ScenarioOOne:OThisOscenarioOoffersOanOopportunityOtoOreviewOtheOdistinctionsObetweenOanO empl
oyeeOandOanOindependentOcontractorOdiscussedOinOtheOchapterO(seeO―TheODefinitionOofO Employ
ee,‖OparticularlyOExhibitsO1.3–1.5).ODiscussOtheOIRSO20-
factorOanalysis,OasOitOappliesOtoO Dalia‘sOposition.OInOlightOofOtheOlowOlevelOofOcontrolOthatODaliaO
hadOoverOherOfeesOandOherOworkO process,OandOtheOlimitsOuponOherOchoiceOofOclients,OstudentsOsho
uldOcomeOtoOtheOconclusionOthatO DaliaOisOanOemployeeO(therefore,OeligibleOtoOfileOanOunemploy
mentOclaim),OratherOthanOanO independentOcontractor.

ScenarioOTwo:OSorayaOwouldOnotOhaveOaOcauseOofOactionOthatOwouldObeOrecognizedObyOtheOEE
OC.O ReviewOtheOsectionO―TheODefinitionOofO‗Employer‘‖OwithOstudents,OandOdiscussOtheOrationale
OthatO determinesOtheOstatusOofOaOsupervisorOvis-à-visOanti-

discriminationOlegislation.OBecauseOSorayaOisO Soraya‘sOsupervisor,OnotOherOemployer,OheOcanno
tObeOtheOtargetOofOanOEEOCOclaimOofOsexualO harassment.

CCC,OSoraya‘sOemployer,OwouldObeOvulnerableOtoOanOEEOCOclaimOifOtheOcompanyOlackedOorOfaile
dtoO followOaOsystemOforOemployeeOredressOofOdiscriminationOgrievances.OHowever,OinOthisOcase,O C
CCO appearsOtoOhaveOaOviableOanti-
discriminationOpolicyOthatOitOadheredOtoOdiligently;Oconsequently,OSorayaO wouldObeOunlikelyOtoOwi
nOaOdecisionOinOherOfavor.OTheOcourtOinOWilliamsOv.OBanningO(1995)OofferedOtheO followingOrational
eOforOitsOdecisionOinOaOsimilarOcase:
―SheOhasOanOemployerOwhoOwasOsensitiveOandOresponsiveOtoOherOcomplaint.OSheOcanOtake
O comfortOinOtheOknowledgeOthatOsheOcontinuesOtoOworkO forOthisOcompany,OwhileOherOharas

serO doesOnotOandOthatOtheOcompany'sOpromptOactionOisOlikelyOtoOdiscourageOotherOwouldO
beO harassers.OThisOisOpreciselyOtheOresultOTitleOVIIOwasOmeantOtoOachieve.‖

ScenarioOThree:OStudentsOshouldOdiscussOwhetherOorOnotOMyaOnon-
competeOagreementOisOlikelyOtobeO foundOreasonableObyOaOcourt,OandOelaborateOtheOaspectsOofOth
eOagreementOthatOMyaOmightOcontestOasO unreasonableO(seeOsectionObelow,O―CovenantsONotOtoOC
ompete‖).ODoesOMyaOhaveOaOpersuasiveO argumentOthatOtheOtermsOofOherOnon-
competeOagreementOareOunreasonableOinOscopeOorOduration?
MightOsheOhaveOgroundsOtoOclaimOthatOtheOagreementOprohibitsOherOfromOmakingOaO living?

GivenOtheOdiversityOofOstateOlawsOregulatingOnon-
competeOagreements,OdiscussOtheOrangeOofOlegalO restrictionsOthatOmightOapplyOtoOMya‘sOparticula
rOagreementOwithOherOemployer.OAsOanOemployeewhoO worksOacrossOseveralOstates,OMya‘sOdefens
eOmayOdependOuponOtheOpresence—andOspecificO language—
ofOaOforumOselectionOclauseOinOherOnon-
competeOagreement.OConsiderOwhatOlanguageO wouldObeOmoreOlikelyOtoOprovideONanOwithOaOstro
ngOdefenseOagainstOtheObreachOofOcontractOclaim.

MyaOmightOalsoOargueOthatOtheOcompany‘sOclientOlistOisOavailableOthroughOpublicOmeans,OandO th
erefore,OherOaccessOtoOthisOlistOshouldOnotObeOprohibited.


GeneralOLectureONoteOforOEmploymentOLawOCourse

InOorderOtoOteachOthisOcourse,OinstructorsOhaveOfoundOthatOstudentsOmustObeOmadeOtoOfeelOrelative
lyO comfortableOwithOtheirOpeers.OInstructorsOwillObeOaskingOtheOstudentsOtoObeOhonestOandOtoOsta
yOinO theirOtruth,OevenOatOtimesOwhenOtheyOfeelOthatOtheirOopinionOonOoneOofOtheseOmattersOwillOno
tObe