SolutionManualrd
EmploymentLawfor Business,10thEdition,
r r r r r
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
r r r r r
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
r r
Chapter r1 rThe rRegulation rof rEmployment
Chapter r2 rThe rEmployment rLaw rToolkit: rResources rfor rUnderstanding rthe rLaw r and rRecurring
rLegal rConcepts
Chapter r3 rTitle rVII rof rthe rCivil rRights rAct rof r1964
Chapter r4 rLegal rConstruction rof rthe rEmployment rEnvironment r Chapter r5
Affirmative rAction
r
Chapter r6 rRace rand rColor rDiscrimination
r Chapter r7 rNational rOrigin rDiscrimination
r Chapter r8 rGender rDiscrimination r r Chapter r9
Sexual rHarassment
r
Chapter r10 rSexual rOrientation rand rGender rIdentity rDiscrimination r Chapter r11
Religious rDiscrimination
r
Chapter r12 rAge rDiscrimination r Chapter r13
Disability rDiscrimination
r
Chapter r14 rThe rEmployee’s rRight rto rPrivacy rand rManagement rof rPersonal
Information
Chapter r15 rLabor rLaw r857
Chapter r16 rSelected rEmployment rBenefits rand rProtections
Chapter r1
, The rRegulation rof rEmployment
Chapter rObjective
The rstudent ris rintroduced rto rthe rregulatory renvironment rof rthe remployment rrelationship. rThe
r chapter rexamines rwhether rregulation ris ractually rnecessary ror rbeneficial ror rif, rperhaps, rthe
r relationship rwould rfare rbetter rwith rless rgovernmental rintervention. rThe rconcepts rof r―freedom‖
rto r contract rin rthe rregulatory remployment renvironment rand rnon-compete ragreements rare
rdiscussed. r Since rthe rregulations rand rcase rlaw rdiscussed rin r this rtext rrely ron r an r individual‘s
rclassification r as r an r employer ror ran remployee, rthose rdefinitions rare rdelineated rand
rexplored.
LearningrObjectives
(Click ron rthe ricon rfollowing rthe rlearning robjective rto rbe rlinked rto rthe rlocation rin rthe routlinewhere
rthe rchapter r addresses rthat rparticular robjective.)
At rthe rconclusion rof rthis rchapter, rthe rstudents rshould rbe rable rto:
1. Describe rthe rbalance rbetween rthe rfreedom rto rcontract rand rthe rcurrent
rregulatory r environment rfor remployment. r
2. Identify rwho ris rsubject rto rwhich remployment rlaws rand runderstand rthe rimplication rof reachof
r these rlaws rfor rboth rthe remployer rand remployee. r
3. Delineate rthe rrisks rto rthe remployer rcaused rby remployee rmisclassification. r
4. Explain rthe rdifference rbetween rand remployee rand ran rindependent rcontractor rand rthe
rtests r that rhelp rus rin rthat rdetermination. r
5. Articulate rthe rvarious rways rin rwhich rthe rconcept r―employer‖ ris rdefined rby rthe
rvarious r employment-related rregulations. r
6. Describe rthe rpermissible rparameters rof rnon-compete ragreements. r
Detailed rChapter rOutline
Scenarios—Points rfor rDiscussion
, Scenario rOne: rThis rscenario roffers ran ropportunity rto rreview rthe rdistinctions rbetween ran
r employee rand ran rindependent rcontractor rdiscussed rin rthe rchapter r(see r―The rDefinition rof
r Employee,‖ rparticularly rExhibits r1.3–1.5). rDiscuss rthe r IRS r20-factor r analysis, ras rit rapplies rto
r Dalia‘s rposition. rIn rlight rof rthe rlow rlevel rof rcontrol rthat rDalia rhad rover rher rfees rand rher rwork
r process, rand rthe rlimits rupon rher rchoice rof rclients, rstudents rshould rcome rto rthe rconclusion rthat
r Dalia ris ran remployee r(therefore, religible rto rfile ran runemployment rclaim), rrather rthan ran
r independent rcontractor.
Scenario rTwo: rSoraya rwould rnot rhave ra rcause rof raction rthat rwould rbe rrecognized rby rthe
rEEOC. r Review rthe rsection r―The rDefinition rof r‗Employer‘‖ rwith rstudents, rand rdiscuss rthe
rrationale rthat r determines rthe rstatus rof ra rsupervisor rvis-à-vis ranti-discrimination rlegislation.
rBecause rSoraya ris r Soraya‘s rsupervisor, rnot rher remployer, rhe rcannot rbe rthe rtarget rof ran
rEEOC rclaim r of rsexual r harassment.
CCC, rSoraya‘s remployer, rwould rbe rvulnerable rto ran rEEOC rclaim rif rthe rcompany rlacked ror
rfailedto r follow ra rsystem rfor remployee rredress rof rdiscrimination rgrievances. rHowever, rin rthis
rcase, r CCC r appears rto rhave ra rviable ranti-discrimination rpolicy rthat rit radhered rto rdiligently;
r consequently, rSoraya r would rbe runlikely rto rwin ra rdecision rin rher rfavor. rThe rcourt rin r Williams rv.
rBanning r(1995) roffered rthe r following rrationale rfor rits rdecision rin ra rsimilar rcase:
―She rhas ran remployer rwho rwas rsensitive rand rresponsive rto rher rcomplaint. rShe rcan rtake
r comfort rin rthe rknowledge rthat rshe rcontinues rto rwork r for rthis rcompany, rwhile rher
rharasser r does rnot rand rthat rthe rcompany's rprompt raction ris rlikely rto rdiscourage rother
rwould rbe r harassers. rThis ris rprecisely rthe rresult rTitle rVII rwas rmeant rto rachieve.‖
Scenario rThree: rStudents rshould rdiscuss rwhether ror rnot rMya rnon-compete ragreement ris rlikely rtobe
r found rreasonable rby ra rcourt, rand relaborate rthe raspects rof rthe ragreement rthat rMya rmight
rcontest ras r unreasonable r(see rsection rbelow, r―Covenants rNot rto rCompete‖). rDoes rMya rhave ra
rpersuasive r argument rthat rthe rterms rof rher rnon-compete ragreement rare runreasonable rin rscope
ror r duration?
Might rshe rhave rgrounds rto rclaim rthat rthe ragreement rprohibits rher rfrom rmaking ra r living?
Given rthe rdiversity rof rstate rlaws rregulating rnon-compete ragreements, rdiscuss rthe rrange rof rlegal
r restrictions rthat rmight rapply rto rMya‘s rparticular ragreement rwith rher remployer. rAs ran
remployeewho r works racross rseveral rstates, rMya‘s rdefense rmay rdepend rupon rthe rpresence—
and rspecific r language—of ra rforum rselection rclause rin rher rnon-compete ragreement. rConsider
rwhat rlanguage r would rbe rmore rlikely rto rprovide rNan rwith ra rstrong rdefense ragainst rthe rbreach
rof rcontract rclaim.
Mya rmight ralso rargue rthat rthe rcompany‘s rclient rlist ris ravailable rthrough rpublic rmeans, rand
r therefore, rher raccess rto rthis rlist rshould rnot rbe rprohibited.
General rLecture rNote rfor rEmployment rLaw rCourse
In rorder rto rteach rthis rcourse, rinstructors rhave rfound rthat rstudents rmust rbe rmade rto rfeel
rrelatively r comfortable rwith rtheir rpeers. rInstructors rwill rbe rasking rthe rstudents rto rbe rhonest
rand rto rstay rin r their rtruth, reven rat rtimes rwhen rthey rfeel rthat rtheir ropinion ron rone rof rthese
rmatters rwill rnot rbe
EmploymentLawfor Business,10thEdition,
r r r r r
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
r r r r r
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
r r
Chapter r1 rThe rRegulation rof rEmployment
Chapter r2 rThe rEmployment rLaw rToolkit: rResources rfor rUnderstanding rthe rLaw r and rRecurring
rLegal rConcepts
Chapter r3 rTitle rVII rof rthe rCivil rRights rAct rof r1964
Chapter r4 rLegal rConstruction rof rthe rEmployment rEnvironment r Chapter r5
Affirmative rAction
r
Chapter r6 rRace rand rColor rDiscrimination
r Chapter r7 rNational rOrigin rDiscrimination
r Chapter r8 rGender rDiscrimination r r Chapter r9
Sexual rHarassment
r
Chapter r10 rSexual rOrientation rand rGender rIdentity rDiscrimination r Chapter r11
Religious rDiscrimination
r
Chapter r12 rAge rDiscrimination r Chapter r13
Disability rDiscrimination
r
Chapter r14 rThe rEmployee’s rRight rto rPrivacy rand rManagement rof rPersonal
Information
Chapter r15 rLabor rLaw r857
Chapter r16 rSelected rEmployment rBenefits rand rProtections
Chapter r1
, The rRegulation rof rEmployment
Chapter rObjective
The rstudent ris rintroduced rto rthe rregulatory renvironment rof rthe remployment rrelationship. rThe
r chapter rexamines rwhether rregulation ris ractually rnecessary ror rbeneficial ror rif, rperhaps, rthe
r relationship rwould rfare rbetter rwith rless rgovernmental rintervention. rThe rconcepts rof r―freedom‖
rto r contract rin rthe rregulatory remployment renvironment rand rnon-compete ragreements rare
rdiscussed. r Since rthe rregulations rand rcase rlaw rdiscussed rin r this rtext rrely ron r an r individual‘s
rclassification r as r an r employer ror ran remployee, rthose rdefinitions rare rdelineated rand
rexplored.
LearningrObjectives
(Click ron rthe ricon rfollowing rthe rlearning robjective rto rbe rlinked rto rthe rlocation rin rthe routlinewhere
rthe rchapter r addresses rthat rparticular robjective.)
At rthe rconclusion rof rthis rchapter, rthe rstudents rshould rbe rable rto:
1. Describe rthe rbalance rbetween rthe rfreedom rto rcontract rand rthe rcurrent
rregulatory r environment rfor remployment. r
2. Identify rwho ris rsubject rto rwhich remployment rlaws rand runderstand rthe rimplication rof reachof
r these rlaws rfor rboth rthe remployer rand remployee. r
3. Delineate rthe rrisks rto rthe remployer rcaused rby remployee rmisclassification. r
4. Explain rthe rdifference rbetween rand remployee rand ran rindependent rcontractor rand rthe
rtests r that rhelp rus rin rthat rdetermination. r
5. Articulate rthe rvarious rways rin rwhich rthe rconcept r―employer‖ ris rdefined rby rthe
rvarious r employment-related rregulations. r
6. Describe rthe rpermissible rparameters rof rnon-compete ragreements. r
Detailed rChapter rOutline
Scenarios—Points rfor rDiscussion
, Scenario rOne: rThis rscenario roffers ran ropportunity rto rreview rthe rdistinctions rbetween ran
r employee rand ran rindependent rcontractor rdiscussed rin rthe rchapter r(see r―The rDefinition rof
r Employee,‖ rparticularly rExhibits r1.3–1.5). rDiscuss rthe r IRS r20-factor r analysis, ras rit rapplies rto
r Dalia‘s rposition. rIn rlight rof rthe rlow rlevel rof rcontrol rthat rDalia rhad rover rher rfees rand rher rwork
r process, rand rthe rlimits rupon rher rchoice rof rclients, rstudents rshould rcome rto rthe rconclusion rthat
r Dalia ris ran remployee r(therefore, religible rto rfile ran runemployment rclaim), rrather rthan ran
r independent rcontractor.
Scenario rTwo: rSoraya rwould rnot rhave ra rcause rof raction rthat rwould rbe rrecognized rby rthe
rEEOC. r Review rthe rsection r―The rDefinition rof r‗Employer‘‖ rwith rstudents, rand rdiscuss rthe
rrationale rthat r determines rthe rstatus rof ra rsupervisor rvis-à-vis ranti-discrimination rlegislation.
rBecause rSoraya ris r Soraya‘s rsupervisor, rnot rher remployer, rhe rcannot rbe rthe rtarget rof ran
rEEOC rclaim r of rsexual r harassment.
CCC, rSoraya‘s remployer, rwould rbe rvulnerable rto ran rEEOC rclaim rif rthe rcompany rlacked ror
rfailedto r follow ra rsystem rfor remployee rredress rof rdiscrimination rgrievances. rHowever, rin rthis
rcase, r CCC r appears rto rhave ra rviable ranti-discrimination rpolicy rthat rit radhered rto rdiligently;
r consequently, rSoraya r would rbe runlikely rto rwin ra rdecision rin rher rfavor. rThe rcourt rin r Williams rv.
rBanning r(1995) roffered rthe r following rrationale rfor rits rdecision rin ra rsimilar rcase:
―She rhas ran remployer rwho rwas rsensitive rand rresponsive rto rher rcomplaint. rShe rcan rtake
r comfort rin rthe rknowledge rthat rshe rcontinues rto rwork r for rthis rcompany, rwhile rher
rharasser r does rnot rand rthat rthe rcompany's rprompt raction ris rlikely rto rdiscourage rother
rwould rbe r harassers. rThis ris rprecisely rthe rresult rTitle rVII rwas rmeant rto rachieve.‖
Scenario rThree: rStudents rshould rdiscuss rwhether ror rnot rMya rnon-compete ragreement ris rlikely rtobe
r found rreasonable rby ra rcourt, rand relaborate rthe raspects rof rthe ragreement rthat rMya rmight
rcontest ras r unreasonable r(see rsection rbelow, r―Covenants rNot rto rCompete‖). rDoes rMya rhave ra
rpersuasive r argument rthat rthe rterms rof rher rnon-compete ragreement rare runreasonable rin rscope
ror r duration?
Might rshe rhave rgrounds rto rclaim rthat rthe ragreement rprohibits rher rfrom rmaking ra r living?
Given rthe rdiversity rof rstate rlaws rregulating rnon-compete ragreements, rdiscuss rthe rrange rof rlegal
r restrictions rthat rmight rapply rto rMya‘s rparticular ragreement rwith rher remployer. rAs ran
remployeewho r works racross rseveral rstates, rMya‘s rdefense rmay rdepend rupon rthe rpresence—
and rspecific r language—of ra rforum rselection rclause rin rher rnon-compete ragreement. rConsider
rwhat rlanguage r would rbe rmore rlikely rto rprovide rNan rwith ra rstrong rdefense ragainst rthe rbreach
rof rcontract rclaim.
Mya rmight ralso rargue rthat rthe rcompany‘s rclient rlist ris ravailable rthrough rpublic rmeans, rand
r therefore, rher raccess rto rthis rlist rshould rnot rbe rprohibited.
General rLecture rNote rfor rEmployment rLaw rCourse
In rorder rto rteach rthis rcourse, rinstructors rhave rfound rthat rstudents rmust rbe rmade rto rfeel
rrelatively r comfortable rwith rtheir rpeers. rInstructors rwill rbe rasking rthe rstudents rto rbe rhonest
rand rto rstay rin r their rtruth, reven rat rtimes rwhen rthey rfeel rthat rtheir ropinion ron rone rof rthese
rmatters rwill rnot rbe
