SolutionManual sd
EmploymentLawforBusiness,10thEdition,
sd sd sd sd sd
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
sd sd sd sd sd
,TABLE OF CONTENTS sd sd
Chapter 1 The Regulation of Employment
sd sd sd sd sd
Chapter 2 The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd s d sd
Legal Concepts
sd sd
Chapter 3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Chapter 4 Legal Construction of the Employment Environment Chapter 5 Affirmative
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd s d sd sd
sd Action
Chapter 6 Race and Color Discrimination
sd sd sd sd sd
s d Chapter 7 National Origin Discrimination
sd sd sd sd
s d Chapter 8 Gender Discrimination Chapter 9
sd sd sd sd s d sd
Sexual Harassment
sd sd
Chapter 10 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Chapter 11
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd s d sd
Religious Discrimination
sd sd
Chapter 12 Age Discrimination Chapter 13
sd sd sd s d sd
Disability Discrimination
sd sd
Chapter 14 The Employee’s Right to Privacy and Management of Personal
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Information
Chapter 15 Labor Law 857
sd sd sd sd
Chapter 16 Selected Employment Benefits and Protections
sd sd sd sd sd sd
Chapter 1 sd
, The Regulation of Employment sd sd sd
Chapter Objective sd
The student is introduced to the regulatory environment of the employment relationship. The
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s chapter examines whether regulation is actually necessary or beneficial or if, perhaps, the
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
relationship would fare better with less governmental intervention. The concepts of ―freedom‖
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
to contract in the regulatory employment environment and non-compete agreements are
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
discussed. Since the regulations and case law discussed in this text rely on an individual‘s
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
classification as an employer or an employee, those definitions are delineated and
sd sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
explored.
sd
LearningObjectives sd
(Click on the icon following the learning objective to be linked to the location in the outlinewhere
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
the chapter addresses that particular objective.)
sd sd s d sd sd sd
At the conclusion of this chapter, the students should be able to:
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
1. Describe the balance between the freedom to contract and the current sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
regulatory environment for employment.
sd s d sd sd sd
2. Identify who is subject to which employment laws and understand the implication of eachof
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
these laws for both the employer and employee.
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
3. Delineate the risks to the employer caused by employee misclassification. sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
4. Explain the difference between and employee and an independent contractor and the
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
tests that help us in that determination.
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd
5. Articulate the various ways in which the concept ―employer‖ is defined by the sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
various employment-related regulations.
sd s d sd sd
6. Describe the permissible parameters of non-compete agreements. sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Detailed Chapter Outline sd sd
Scenarios—Points for Discussion sd sd
, Scenario One: This scenario offers an opportunity to review the distinctions between an
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s employee and an independent contractor discussed in the chapter (see ―The Definition of
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s Employee,‖ particularly Exhibits 1.3–1.5). Discuss the IRS 20-factor analysis, as it applies to
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Dalia‘s position. In light of the low level of control that Dalia had over her fees and her work
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
process, and the limits upon her choice of clients, students should come to the conclusion that
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s Dalia is an employee (therefore, eligible to file an unemployment claim), rather than an
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s independent contractor.
d sd
Scenario Two: Soraya would not have a cause of action that would be recognized by the EEOC.
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s Review the section ―The Definition of ‗Employer‘‖ with students, and discuss the rationale that
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s determines the status of a supervisor vis-à-vis anti-discrimination legislation. Because Soraya
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
is
sd Soraya‘s supervisor, not her employer, he cannot be the target of an EEOC claim of
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
sexual harassment.
sd s d
CCC, Soraya‘s employer, would be vulnerable to an EEOC claim if the company lacked or
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
failedto follow a system for employee redress of discrimination grievances. However, in this
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
case, CCC appears to have a viable anti-discrimination policy that it adhered to diligently;
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
consequently, Soraya would be unlikely to win a decision in her favor. The court in Williams v.
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Banning (1995) offered the following rationale for its decision in a similar case:
sd sd sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
―She has an employer who was sensitive and responsive to her complaint. She can take
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
comfort in the knowledge that she continues to work for this company, while her
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
harasser does not and that the company's prompt action is likely to discourage other
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
would be harassers. This is precisely the result Title VII was meant to achieve.‖
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Scenario Three: Students should discuss whether or not Mya non-compete agreement is likely tobe
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s found reasonable by a court, and elaborate the aspects of the agreement that Mya might
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
contest as unreasonable (see section below, ―Covenants Not to Compete‖). Does Mya have a
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
persuasive argument that the terms of her non-compete agreement are unreasonable in scope
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
or duration?
sd sd
Might she have grounds to claim that the agreement prohibits her from making a living?
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Given the diversity of state laws regulating non-compete agreements, discuss the range of legal
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s restrictions that might apply to Mya‘s particular agreement with her employer. As an
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
employeewho works across several states, Mya‘s defense may depend upon the presence—
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
and specific language—of a forum selection clause in her non-compete agreement. Consider
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
what language would be more likely to provide Nan with a strong defense against the breach
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
of contract claim.
sd sd sd
Mya might also argue that the company‘s client list is available through public means, and
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
stherefore, her access to this list should not be prohibited.
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
General Lecture Note for Employment Law Course sd sd sd sd sd sd
In order to teach this course, instructors have found that students must be made to feel relatively
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s comfortable with their peers. Instructors will be asking the students to be honest and to stay in
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s their truth, even at times when they feel that their opinion on one of these matters will not be
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
EmploymentLawforBusiness,10thEdition,
sd sd sd sd sd
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
sd sd sd sd sd
,TABLE OF CONTENTS sd sd
Chapter 1 The Regulation of Employment
sd sd sd sd sd
Chapter 2 The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd s d sd
Legal Concepts
sd sd
Chapter 3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Chapter 4 Legal Construction of the Employment Environment Chapter 5 Affirmative
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd s d sd sd
sd Action
Chapter 6 Race and Color Discrimination
sd sd sd sd sd
s d Chapter 7 National Origin Discrimination
sd sd sd sd
s d Chapter 8 Gender Discrimination Chapter 9
sd sd sd sd s d sd
Sexual Harassment
sd sd
Chapter 10 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Chapter 11
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd s d sd
Religious Discrimination
sd sd
Chapter 12 Age Discrimination Chapter 13
sd sd sd s d sd
Disability Discrimination
sd sd
Chapter 14 The Employee’s Right to Privacy and Management of Personal
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Information
Chapter 15 Labor Law 857
sd sd sd sd
Chapter 16 Selected Employment Benefits and Protections
sd sd sd sd sd sd
Chapter 1 sd
, The Regulation of Employment sd sd sd
Chapter Objective sd
The student is introduced to the regulatory environment of the employment relationship. The
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s chapter examines whether regulation is actually necessary or beneficial or if, perhaps, the
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
relationship would fare better with less governmental intervention. The concepts of ―freedom‖
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
to contract in the regulatory employment environment and non-compete agreements are
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
discussed. Since the regulations and case law discussed in this text rely on an individual‘s
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
classification as an employer or an employee, those definitions are delineated and
sd sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
explored.
sd
LearningObjectives sd
(Click on the icon following the learning objective to be linked to the location in the outlinewhere
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
the chapter addresses that particular objective.)
sd sd s d sd sd sd
At the conclusion of this chapter, the students should be able to:
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
1. Describe the balance between the freedom to contract and the current sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
regulatory environment for employment.
sd s d sd sd sd
2. Identify who is subject to which employment laws and understand the implication of eachof
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
these laws for both the employer and employee.
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
3. Delineate the risks to the employer caused by employee misclassification. sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
4. Explain the difference between and employee and an independent contractor and the
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
tests that help us in that determination.
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd
5. Articulate the various ways in which the concept ―employer‖ is defined by the sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
various employment-related regulations.
sd s d sd sd
6. Describe the permissible parameters of non-compete agreements. sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Detailed Chapter Outline sd sd
Scenarios—Points for Discussion sd sd
, Scenario One: This scenario offers an opportunity to review the distinctions between an
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s employee and an independent contractor discussed in the chapter (see ―The Definition of
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s Employee,‖ particularly Exhibits 1.3–1.5). Discuss the IRS 20-factor analysis, as it applies to
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Dalia‘s position. In light of the low level of control that Dalia had over her fees and her work
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
process, and the limits upon her choice of clients, students should come to the conclusion that
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s Dalia is an employee (therefore, eligible to file an unemployment claim), rather than an
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s independent contractor.
d sd
Scenario Two: Soraya would not have a cause of action that would be recognized by the EEOC.
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s Review the section ―The Definition of ‗Employer‘‖ with students, and discuss the rationale that
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s determines the status of a supervisor vis-à-vis anti-discrimination legislation. Because Soraya
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
is
sd Soraya‘s supervisor, not her employer, he cannot be the target of an EEOC claim of
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
sexual harassment.
sd s d
CCC, Soraya‘s employer, would be vulnerable to an EEOC claim if the company lacked or
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
failedto follow a system for employee redress of discrimination grievances. However, in this
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
case, CCC appears to have a viable anti-discrimination policy that it adhered to diligently;
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
consequently, Soraya would be unlikely to win a decision in her favor. The court in Williams v.
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Banning (1995) offered the following rationale for its decision in a similar case:
sd sd sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
―She has an employer who was sensitive and responsive to her complaint. She can take
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
comfort in the knowledge that she continues to work for this company, while her
s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
harasser does not and that the company's prompt action is likely to discourage other
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
would be harassers. This is precisely the result Title VII was meant to achieve.‖
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Scenario Three: Students should discuss whether or not Mya non-compete agreement is likely tobe
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s found reasonable by a court, and elaborate the aspects of the agreement that Mya might
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
contest as unreasonable (see section below, ―Covenants Not to Compete‖). Does Mya have a
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
persuasive argument that the terms of her non-compete agreement are unreasonable in scope
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
or duration?
sd sd
Might she have grounds to claim that the agreement prohibits her from making a living?
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
Given the diversity of state laws regulating non-compete agreements, discuss the range of legal
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s restrictions that might apply to Mya‘s particular agreement with her employer. As an
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
employeewho works across several states, Mya‘s defense may depend upon the presence—
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
and specific language—of a forum selection clause in her non-compete agreement. Consider
sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
what language would be more likely to provide Nan with a strong defense against the breach
sd sd s d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
of contract claim.
sd sd sd
Mya might also argue that the company‘s client list is available through public means, and
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
stherefore, her access to this list should not be prohibited.
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
General Lecture Note for Employment Law Course sd sd sd sd sd sd
In order to teach this course, instructors have found that students must be made to feel relatively
sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s comfortable with their peers. Instructors will be asking the students to be honest and to stay in
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
s their truth, even at times when they feel that their opinion on one of these matters will not be
d sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd sd
