Solution Manual
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
,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: dThis dscenario doffers dan dopportunity dto dreview dthe ddistinctions dbetween dan
d employee dand dan dindependent dcontractor ddiscussed din dthe dchapter d(see d―The dDefinition
dof d Employee,‖ dparticularly dExhibits d1.3–1.5). dDiscuss dthe d IRS d20-factor d analysis, das dit
dapplies dto d Dalia‘s dposition. dIn dlight dof dthe dlow dlevel dof dcontrol dthat dDalia dhad dover
dher dfees dand dher dwork d process, dand dthe dlimits dupon dher dchoice dof dclients, dstudents
dshould dcome dto dthe dconclusion dthat d Dalia dis dan demployee d(therefore, deligible dto dfile
dan dunemployment dclaim), drather dthan dan d independent dcontractor.
Scenario dTwo: dSoraya dwould dnot dhave da dcause dof daction dthat dwould dbe drecognized dby
dthe dEEOC. d Review dthe dsection d―The dDefinition dof d‗Employer‘‖ dwith dstudents, dand ddiscuss
dthe drationale dthat d determines dthe dstatus dof da dsupervisor dvis-à-vis danti-discrimination
dlegislation. dBecause dSoraya dis d Soraya‘s dsupervisor, dnot dher demployer, dhe dcannot dbe
dthe dtarget dof dan dEEOC dclaim d of dsexual d harassment.
CCC, dSoraya‘s demployer, dwould dbe dvulnerable dto dan dEEOC dclaim dif dthe dcompany dlacked
dor dfailedto d follow da dsystem dfor demployee dredress dof ddiscrimination dgrievances. dHowever,
din dthis dcase, d CCC d appears dto dhave da dviable danti-discrimination dpolicy dthat dit dadhered
dto ddiligently; d consequently, dSoraya d would dbe dunlikely dto dwin da ddecision din dher dfavor.
dThe dcourt din d Williams dv. dBanning d(1995) doffered dthe d following drationale dfor dits ddecision
din da dsimilar dcase:
―She dhas dan demployer dwho dwas dsensitive dand dresponsive dto dher dcomplaint. dShe
dcan dtake d comfort din dthe dknowledge dthat dshe dcontinues dto dwork d for dthis dcompany,
dwhile dher dharasser d does dnot dand dthat dthe dcompany's dprompt daction dis dlikely dto
ddiscourage dother dwould dbe d harassers. dThis dis dprecisely dthe dresult dTitle dVII dwas
dmeant dto dachieve.‖
Scenario dThree: dStudents dshould ddiscuss dwhether dor dnot dMya dnon-compete dagreement dis
dlikely dtobe d found dreasonable dby da dcourt, dand delaborate dthe daspects dof dthe dagreement
dthat dMya dmight dcontest das d unreasonable d(see dsection dbelow, d―Covenants dNot dto
dCompete‖). dDoes dMya dhave da dpersuasive d argument dthat dthe dterms dof dher dnon-compete
dagreement dare dunreasonable din dscope dor d duration?
Might dshe dhave dgrounds dto dclaim dthat dthe dagreement dprohibits dher dfrom dmaking da d living?
Given dthe ddiversity dof dstate dlaws dregulating dnon-compete dagreements, ddiscuss dthe drange
dof dlegal d restrictions dthat dmight dapply dto dMya‘s dparticular dagreement dwith dher
demployer. dAs dan demployeewho d works dacross dseveral dstates, dMya‘s ddefense dmay
ddepend dupon dthe dpresence—and dspecific d language—of da dforum dselection dclause din dher
dnon-compete dagreement. dConsider dwhat dlanguage d would dbe dmore dlikely dto dprovide dNan
dwith da dstrong ddefense dagainst dthe dbreach dof dcontract dclaim.
Mya dmight dalso dargue dthat dthe dcompany‘s dclient dlist dis davailable dthrough dpublic dmeans,
dand d therefore, dher daccess dto dthis dlist dshould dnot dbe dprohibited.
General dLecture dNote dfor dEmployment dLaw dCourse
In dorder dto dteach dthis dcourse, dinstructors dhave dfound dthat dstudents dmust dbe dmade dto dfeel
drelatively d comfortable dwith dtheir dpeers. dInstructors dwill dbe dasking dthe dstudents dto dbe
dhonest dand dto dstay din d their dtruth, deven dat dtimes dwhen dthey dfeel dthat dtheir dopinion don
done dof dthese dmatters dwill dnot dbe
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
,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: dThis dscenario doffers dan dopportunity dto dreview dthe ddistinctions dbetween dan
d employee dand dan dindependent dcontractor ddiscussed din dthe dchapter d(see d―The dDefinition
dof d Employee,‖ dparticularly dExhibits d1.3–1.5). dDiscuss dthe d IRS d20-factor d analysis, das dit
dapplies dto d Dalia‘s dposition. dIn dlight dof dthe dlow dlevel dof dcontrol dthat dDalia dhad dover
dher dfees dand dher dwork d process, dand dthe dlimits dupon dher dchoice dof dclients, dstudents
dshould dcome dto dthe dconclusion dthat d Dalia dis dan demployee d(therefore, deligible dto dfile
dan dunemployment dclaim), drather dthan dan d independent dcontractor.
Scenario dTwo: dSoraya dwould dnot dhave da dcause dof daction dthat dwould dbe drecognized dby
dthe dEEOC. d Review dthe dsection d―The dDefinition dof d‗Employer‘‖ dwith dstudents, dand ddiscuss
dthe drationale dthat d determines dthe dstatus dof da dsupervisor dvis-à-vis danti-discrimination
dlegislation. dBecause dSoraya dis d Soraya‘s dsupervisor, dnot dher demployer, dhe dcannot dbe
dthe dtarget dof dan dEEOC dclaim d of dsexual d harassment.
CCC, dSoraya‘s demployer, dwould dbe dvulnerable dto dan dEEOC dclaim dif dthe dcompany dlacked
dor dfailedto d follow da dsystem dfor demployee dredress dof ddiscrimination dgrievances. dHowever,
din dthis dcase, d CCC d appears dto dhave da dviable danti-discrimination dpolicy dthat dit dadhered
dto ddiligently; d consequently, dSoraya d would dbe dunlikely dto dwin da ddecision din dher dfavor.
dThe dcourt din d Williams dv. dBanning d(1995) doffered dthe d following drationale dfor dits ddecision
din da dsimilar dcase:
―She dhas dan demployer dwho dwas dsensitive dand dresponsive dto dher dcomplaint. dShe
dcan dtake d comfort din dthe dknowledge dthat dshe dcontinues dto dwork d for dthis dcompany,
dwhile dher dharasser d does dnot dand dthat dthe dcompany's dprompt daction dis dlikely dto
ddiscourage dother dwould dbe d harassers. dThis dis dprecisely dthe dresult dTitle dVII dwas
dmeant dto dachieve.‖
Scenario dThree: dStudents dshould ddiscuss dwhether dor dnot dMya dnon-compete dagreement dis
dlikely dtobe d found dreasonable dby da dcourt, dand delaborate dthe daspects dof dthe dagreement
dthat dMya dmight dcontest das d unreasonable d(see dsection dbelow, d―Covenants dNot dto
dCompete‖). dDoes dMya dhave da dpersuasive d argument dthat dthe dterms dof dher dnon-compete
dagreement dare dunreasonable din dscope dor d duration?
Might dshe dhave dgrounds dto dclaim dthat dthe dagreement dprohibits dher dfrom dmaking da d living?
Given dthe ddiversity dof dstate dlaws dregulating dnon-compete dagreements, ddiscuss dthe drange
dof dlegal d restrictions dthat dmight dapply dto dMya‘s dparticular dagreement dwith dher
demployer. dAs dan demployeewho d works dacross dseveral dstates, dMya‘s ddefense dmay
ddepend dupon dthe dpresence—and dspecific d language—of da dforum dselection dclause din dher
dnon-compete dagreement. dConsider dwhat dlanguage d would dbe dmore dlikely dto dprovide dNan
dwith da dstrong ddefense dagainst dthe dbreach dof dcontract dclaim.
Mya dmight dalso dargue dthat dthe dcompany‘s dclient dlist dis davailable dthrough dpublic dmeans,
dand d therefore, dher daccess dto dthis dlist dshould dnot dbe dprohibited.
General dLecture dNote dfor dEmployment dLaw dCourse
In dorder dto dteach dthis dcourse, dinstructors dhave dfound dthat dstudents dmust dbe dmade dto dfeel
drelatively d comfortable dwith dtheir dpeers. dInstructors dwill dbe dasking dthe dstudents dto dbe
dhonest dand dto dstay din d their dtruth, deven dat dtimes dwhen dthey dfeel dthat dtheir dopinion don
done dof dthese dmatters dwill dnot dbe
