SolutionManual
t
EmploymentLawforBusiness,10thEdition,
t t t t t
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters1 - 16
t t t t t
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
t t
Chapter t1 tThe tRegulation tof tEmployment
Chapter t2 tThe tEmployment tLaw tToolkit: tResources tfor tUnderstanding tthe tLaw t and tRecurring
tLegal tConcepts
Chapter t3 tTitle tVII tof tthe tCivil tRights tAct tof t1964
Chapter t4 tLegal tConstruction tof tthe tEmployment tEnvironment t Chapter t5
Affirmative tAction
t
Chapter t6 tRace tand tColor tDiscrimination
t Chapter t7 tNational tOrigin tDiscrimination
t Chapter t8 tGender tDiscrimination t t Chapter t9
Sexual tHarassment
t
Chapter t10 tSexual tOrientation tand tGender tIdentity tDiscrimination t Chapter t11
Religious tDiscrimination
t
Chapter t12 tAge tDiscrimination t Chapter t13
Disability tDiscrimination
t
Chapter t14 tThe tEmployee’s tRight tto tPrivacy tand tManagement tof tPersonal
Information
Chapter t15 tLabor tLaw t857
Chapter t16 tSelected tEmployment tBenefits tand tProtections
Chapter t1
, The tRegulation tof tEmployment
Chapter tObjective
The tstudent tis tintroduced tto tthe tregulatory tenvironment tof tthe temployment trelationship. tThe
t chapter texamines twhether tregulation tis tactually tnecessary tor tbeneficial tor tif, tperhaps, tthe
t relationship twould tfare tbetter twith tless tgovernmental tintervention. tThe tconcepts tof t―freedom‖
tto t contract tin tthe tregulatory temployment tenvironment tand tnon-compete tagreements tare
tdiscussed. t Since tthe tregulations tand tcase tlaw tdiscussed tin tthis ttext trely ton tan t individual‘s
tclassification t as t an t employer tor tan temployee, tthose tdefinitions tare tdelineated tand
texplored.
LearningtObjectives
(Click ton tthe ticon tfollowing tthe tlearning tobjective tto tbe tlinked tto tthe tlocation tin tthe toutlinewhere
tthe tchapter t addresses tthat tparticular tobjective.)
At tthe tconclusion tof tthis tchapter, tthe tstudents tshould tbe table tto:
1. Describe tthe tbalance tbetween tthe tfreedom tto tcontract tand tthe tcurrent
tregulatory t environment tfor temployment. t
2. Identify twho tis tsubject tto twhich temployment tlaws tand tunderstand tthe timplication tof
teachof t these tlaws tfor tboth tthe temployer tand temployee. t
3. Delineate tthe trisks tto tthe temployer tcaused tby temployee tmisclassification. t
4. Explain tthe tdifference tbetween tand temployee tand tan tindependent tcontractor tand tthe
ttests t that thelp tus tin tthat tdetermination. t
5. Articulate tthe tvarious tways tin twhich tthe tconcept t―employer‖ tis tdefined tby tthe
tvarious t employment-related tregulations. t
6. Describe tthe tpermissible tparameters tof tnon-compete tagreements. t
Detailed tChapter tOutline
Scenarios—Points tfor tDiscussion
, Scenario tOne: tThis tscenario toffers tan topportunity tto treview tthe tdistinctions tbetween tan
t employee tand tan tindependent tcontractor tdiscussed tin tthe tchapter t(see t―The tDefinition tof
t Employee,‖ tparticularly tExhibits t1.3–1.5). tDiscuss tthe t IRS t20-factor tanalysis, tas tit tapplies tto
t Dalia‘s tposition. tIn tlight tof tthe tlow tlevel tof tcontrol tthat tDalia thad tover ther tfees tand ther
twork t process, tand tthe tlimits tupon ther tchoice tof tclients, tstudents tshould tcome tto tthe tconclusion
tthat t Dalia tis tan temployee t(therefore, teligible tto tfile tan tunemployment tclaim), trather tthan
tan t independent tcontractor.
Scenario tTwo: tSoraya twould tnot thave ta tcause tof taction tthat twould tbe trecognized tby tthe
tEEOC. t Review tthe tsection t―The tDefinition tof t‗Employer‘‖ twith tstudents, tand tdiscuss tthe
trationale tthat t determines tthe tstatus tof ta tsupervisor tvis-à-vis tanti-discrimination tlegislation.
tBecause tSoraya tis t Soraya‘s tsupervisor, tnot ther temployer, the tcannot tbe tthe ttarget tof tan
tEEOC tclaim t of tsexual t harassment.
CCC, tSoraya‘s temployer, twould tbe tvulnerable tto tan tEEOC tclaim tif tthe tcompany tlacked tor
tfailedto t follow ta tsystem tfor temployee tredress tof tdiscrimination tgrievances. tHowever, tin tthis
tcase, t CCC t appears tto thave ta tviable tanti-discrimination tpolicy tthat tit tadhered tto tdiligently;
t consequently, tSoraya t would tbe tunlikely tto twin ta tdecision tin ther tfavor. tThe tcourt tin tWilliams
tv. tBanning t(1995) toffered tthe t following trationale tfor tits tdecision tin ta tsimilar tcase:
―She thas tan temployer twho twas tsensitive tand tresponsive tto ther tcomplaint. tShe tcan ttake
t comfort tin tthe tknowledge tthat tshe tcontinues tto twork t for tthis tcompany, twhile ther
tharasser t does tnot tand tthat tthe tcompany's tprompt taction tis tlikely tto tdiscourage tother
twould tbe t harassers. tThis tis tprecisely tthe tresult tTitle tVII twas tmeant tto tachieve.‖
Scenario tThree: tStudents tshould tdiscuss twhether tor tnot tMya tnon-compete tagreement tis tlikely ttobe
t found treasonable tby ta tcourt, tand telaborate tthe taspects tof tthe tagreement tthat tMya tmight
tcontest tas t unreasonable t(see tsection tbelow, t―Covenants tNot tto tCompete‖). tDoes tMya thave ta
tpersuasive t argument tthat tthe tterms tof ther tnon-compete tagreement tare tunreasonable tin tscope
tor tduration?
Might tshe thave tgrounds tto tclaim tthat tthe tagreement tprohibits ther tfrom tmaking ta t living?
Given tthe tdiversity tof tstate tlaws tregulating tnon-compete tagreements, tdiscuss tthe trange tof tlegal
t restrictions tthat tmight tapply tto tMya‘s tparticular tagreement t with ther temployer. tAs tan
temployeewho t works tacross tseveral tstates, tMya‘s tdefense tmay tdepend tupon tthe tpresence—
and tspecific t language—of ta tforum tselection tclause tin ther tnon-compete tagreement. tConsider
twhat tlanguage t would tbe tmore tlikely tto tprovide tNan twith ta tstrong tdefense tagainst tthe
tbreach tof tcontract tclaim.
Mya tmight talso targue tthat tthe tcompany‘s tclient tlist tis tavailable tthrough tpublic tmeans, tand
t therefore, ther taccess tto tthis tlist tshould t not tbe tprohibited.
General tLecture tNote tfor tEmployment tLaw tCourse
In torder tto tteach tthis tcourse, tinstructors thave tfound tthat tstudents tmust tbe tmade tto tfeel
trelatively t comfortable twith ttheir tpeers. tInstructors twill tbe tasking tthe tstudents tto tbe thonest
tand tto tstay tin t their ttruth, teven tat ttimes twhen tthey tfeel tthat ttheir topinion ton tone tof tthese
tmatters twill tnot tbe
t
EmploymentLawforBusiness,10thEdition,
t t t t t
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters1 - 16
t t t t t
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
t t
Chapter t1 tThe tRegulation tof tEmployment
Chapter t2 tThe tEmployment tLaw tToolkit: tResources tfor tUnderstanding tthe tLaw t and tRecurring
tLegal tConcepts
Chapter t3 tTitle tVII tof tthe tCivil tRights tAct tof t1964
Chapter t4 tLegal tConstruction tof tthe tEmployment tEnvironment t Chapter t5
Affirmative tAction
t
Chapter t6 tRace tand tColor tDiscrimination
t Chapter t7 tNational tOrigin tDiscrimination
t Chapter t8 tGender tDiscrimination t t Chapter t9
Sexual tHarassment
t
Chapter t10 tSexual tOrientation tand tGender tIdentity tDiscrimination t Chapter t11
Religious tDiscrimination
t
Chapter t12 tAge tDiscrimination t Chapter t13
Disability tDiscrimination
t
Chapter t14 tThe tEmployee’s tRight tto tPrivacy tand tManagement tof tPersonal
Information
Chapter t15 tLabor tLaw t857
Chapter t16 tSelected tEmployment tBenefits tand tProtections
Chapter t1
, The tRegulation tof tEmployment
Chapter tObjective
The tstudent tis tintroduced tto tthe tregulatory tenvironment tof tthe temployment trelationship. tThe
t chapter texamines twhether tregulation tis tactually tnecessary tor tbeneficial tor tif, tperhaps, tthe
t relationship twould tfare tbetter twith tless tgovernmental tintervention. tThe tconcepts tof t―freedom‖
tto t contract tin tthe tregulatory temployment tenvironment tand tnon-compete tagreements tare
tdiscussed. t Since tthe tregulations tand tcase tlaw tdiscussed tin tthis ttext trely ton tan t individual‘s
tclassification t as t an t employer tor tan temployee, tthose tdefinitions tare tdelineated tand
texplored.
LearningtObjectives
(Click ton tthe ticon tfollowing tthe tlearning tobjective tto tbe tlinked tto tthe tlocation tin tthe toutlinewhere
tthe tchapter t addresses tthat tparticular tobjective.)
At tthe tconclusion tof tthis tchapter, tthe tstudents tshould tbe table tto:
1. Describe tthe tbalance tbetween tthe tfreedom tto tcontract tand tthe tcurrent
tregulatory t environment tfor temployment. t
2. Identify twho tis tsubject tto twhich temployment tlaws tand tunderstand tthe timplication tof
teachof t these tlaws tfor tboth tthe temployer tand temployee. t
3. Delineate tthe trisks tto tthe temployer tcaused tby temployee tmisclassification. t
4. Explain tthe tdifference tbetween tand temployee tand tan tindependent tcontractor tand tthe
ttests t that thelp tus tin tthat tdetermination. t
5. Articulate tthe tvarious tways tin twhich tthe tconcept t―employer‖ tis tdefined tby tthe
tvarious t employment-related tregulations. t
6. Describe tthe tpermissible tparameters tof tnon-compete tagreements. t
Detailed tChapter tOutline
Scenarios—Points tfor tDiscussion
, Scenario tOne: tThis tscenario toffers tan topportunity tto treview tthe tdistinctions tbetween tan
t employee tand tan tindependent tcontractor tdiscussed tin tthe tchapter t(see t―The tDefinition tof
t Employee,‖ tparticularly tExhibits t1.3–1.5). tDiscuss tthe t IRS t20-factor tanalysis, tas tit tapplies tto
t Dalia‘s tposition. tIn tlight tof tthe tlow tlevel tof tcontrol tthat tDalia thad tover ther tfees tand ther
twork t process, tand tthe tlimits tupon ther tchoice tof tclients, tstudents tshould tcome tto tthe tconclusion
tthat t Dalia tis tan temployee t(therefore, teligible tto tfile tan tunemployment tclaim), trather tthan
tan t independent tcontractor.
Scenario tTwo: tSoraya twould tnot thave ta tcause tof taction tthat twould tbe trecognized tby tthe
tEEOC. t Review tthe tsection t―The tDefinition tof t‗Employer‘‖ twith tstudents, tand tdiscuss tthe
trationale tthat t determines tthe tstatus tof ta tsupervisor tvis-à-vis tanti-discrimination tlegislation.
tBecause tSoraya tis t Soraya‘s tsupervisor, tnot ther temployer, the tcannot tbe tthe ttarget tof tan
tEEOC tclaim t of tsexual t harassment.
CCC, tSoraya‘s temployer, twould tbe tvulnerable tto tan tEEOC tclaim tif tthe tcompany tlacked tor
tfailedto t follow ta tsystem tfor temployee tredress tof tdiscrimination tgrievances. tHowever, tin tthis
tcase, t CCC t appears tto thave ta tviable tanti-discrimination tpolicy tthat tit tadhered tto tdiligently;
t consequently, tSoraya t would tbe tunlikely tto twin ta tdecision tin ther tfavor. tThe tcourt tin tWilliams
tv. tBanning t(1995) toffered tthe t following trationale tfor tits tdecision tin ta tsimilar tcase:
―She thas tan temployer twho twas tsensitive tand tresponsive tto ther tcomplaint. tShe tcan ttake
t comfort tin tthe tknowledge tthat tshe tcontinues tto twork t for tthis tcompany, twhile ther
tharasser t does tnot tand tthat tthe tcompany's tprompt taction tis tlikely tto tdiscourage tother
twould tbe t harassers. tThis tis tprecisely tthe tresult tTitle tVII twas tmeant tto tachieve.‖
Scenario tThree: tStudents tshould tdiscuss twhether tor tnot tMya tnon-compete tagreement tis tlikely ttobe
t found treasonable tby ta tcourt, tand telaborate tthe taspects tof tthe tagreement tthat tMya tmight
tcontest tas t unreasonable t(see tsection tbelow, t―Covenants tNot tto tCompete‖). tDoes tMya thave ta
tpersuasive t argument tthat tthe tterms tof ther tnon-compete tagreement tare tunreasonable tin tscope
tor tduration?
Might tshe thave tgrounds tto tclaim tthat tthe tagreement tprohibits ther tfrom tmaking ta t living?
Given tthe tdiversity tof tstate tlaws tregulating tnon-compete tagreements, tdiscuss tthe trange tof tlegal
t restrictions tthat tmight tapply tto tMya‘s tparticular tagreement t with ther temployer. tAs tan
temployeewho t works tacross tseveral tstates, tMya‘s tdefense tmay tdepend tupon tthe tpresence—
and tspecific t language—of ta tforum tselection tclause tin ther tnon-compete tagreement. tConsider
twhat tlanguage t would tbe tmore tlikely tto tprovide tNan twith ta tstrong tdefense tagainst tthe
tbreach tof tcontract tclaim.
Mya tmight talso targue tthat tthe tcompany‘s tclient tlist tis tavailable tthrough tpublic tmeans, tand
t therefore, ther taccess tto tthis tlist tshould t not tbe tprohibited.
General tLecture tNote tfor tEmployment tLaw tCourse
In torder tto tteach tthis tcourse, tinstructors thave tfound tthat tstudents tmust tbe tmade tto tfeel
trelatively t comfortable twith ttheir tpeers. tInstructors twill tbe tasking tthe tstudents tto tbe thonest
tand tto tstay tin t their ttruth, teven tat ttimes twhen tthey tfeel tthat ttheir topinion ton tone tof tthese
tmatters twill tnot tbe
