MGMT 417 – Test 3 – Study Guide and Key Concept Summary
Title VII: (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— - ANS✔✔ (1) to fail
or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which
would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex,
or *national origin*.
42 USC §2000e-2
*Remember, Title VII applies to all companies that employ 15 or more employees.*
What is National Origin? - ANS✔✔ the fifth prohibited category in Title VII, but Title VII does not
define "national origin."
EEOC defines National Origin as - ANS✔✔ the applicant's, or employee's, or his or her
ancestor's, place of origin (i.e., place of birth), OR having the physical, cultural or linguistic
characteristics of a national group.
T/F Title VII also prohibits discrimination based on one's citizenship - ANS✔✔ FALSE
*IT DOES NOT* prohibit discrimination based on one's citizenship
,What is National Origin Discrimination? - ANS✔✔ Treating someone less favorably (a denial of
equal employment opportunity) because he or she (or his or her ancestors) comes from a
particular place or because he or she has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a
national origin group
T/F National origin discrimination claims are the 2nd fastest growing category under Title VII,
after religious discrimination. - ANS✔✔ True
Title VII prohibits national origin discrimination based on one's: - ANS✔✔ Ancestry: country of
birth
Physical characteristics associated with national origin: i.e., hair, facial features, color, height,
weight
Cultural characteristics and perception: i.e., name, dress, accent
Linguistics: accent
Association with someone of a particular national origin: i.e., white person who is married to an
Iranian
Membership in an organization that is affiliated with a certain national origin
With regard to linguistics and accent, however: - ANS✔✔ an employer is permitted to choose
not to hire or promote, or to terminate, an employee that requires clear oral communication in
English if the employee's accent substantially affects her ability to communicate clearly (BFOQ).
*A teacher's termination was upheld where the teacher spoke English but spoke with such a
thick accent that her students had difficulty understanding her.*
,A plaintiff must prove the following factors for a prima facia case for disparate treatment: -
ANS✔✔ Employee belongs to a protected class under Title VII
Employee applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants
Employee was rejected and, after the rejection, the position remained open
Employer continued to seek applicants with the same qualifications that the rejected applicant
has
2nd Element of Prima Facia case - ANS✔✔ Employee was "qualified" for the position.
No employer accommodation is required for one's national origin (unlike disability and religion,
as we shall see later in the course).
No requirement for an employer to accommodate an employee's dress or attire of national
origin (i.e., traditional African dress).
Employer's defense to Disparate *Treatment* claim: - ANS✔✔ Legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason (LNDR)
or
bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) to show that employee is not qualified
BFOQ: - ANS✔✔ Reasonably necessary for the employer's particular business.
, The basis for preferring one national origin over another must go to the essence of what the
employer is in business to do. BFOQ is a defense to a disparate treatment discrimination claim
and is provided in 42 USC 2000e-2(e)
Employer's defense to Disparate *Impact* claim: - ANS✔✔ Business necessity as to why a
specific national origin (i.e., English-speaking country) is necessary for the position.
Can an employer have a policy requiring all employees to be fluent in English? - ANS✔✔ Per
EEOC yes, but only if fluency is required to perform the work effectively.
Fluency example:
Jorge, a Dominican national, applies for a sales position with XYZ Appliances, a small retailer of
home appliances in a non-bilingual, English-speaking community. Jorge has very limited skill
with spoken English. XYZ notifies him that he is not qualified for a sales position because his
ability to effectively assist customers is limited. However, XYZ offers to consider him for a
position in the stock room.
Does this violate Title VII? - ANS✔✔ No, Under these circumstances, XYZ's decision to exclude
Jorge from the sales position *does not* violate Title VII
EEOC's position on requiring all employees to speak only English while in the workplace? -
ANS✔✔ Although Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of language (language is
not a protected category under Title VII), nevertheless, employers should be aware that since
2001, the EEOC has been targeting employers that implement English-only policies
EEOC's position is that an English-only policy that restricts employees from speaking a language
other than English at all times violates Title VII, and most courts have dutifully obeyed the
EEOC's position
Title VII: (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— - ANS✔✔ (1) to fail
or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which
would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex,
or *national origin*.
42 USC §2000e-2
*Remember, Title VII applies to all companies that employ 15 or more employees.*
What is National Origin? - ANS✔✔ the fifth prohibited category in Title VII, but Title VII does not
define "national origin."
EEOC defines National Origin as - ANS✔✔ the applicant's, or employee's, or his or her
ancestor's, place of origin (i.e., place of birth), OR having the physical, cultural or linguistic
characteristics of a national group.
T/F Title VII also prohibits discrimination based on one's citizenship - ANS✔✔ FALSE
*IT DOES NOT* prohibit discrimination based on one's citizenship
,What is National Origin Discrimination? - ANS✔✔ Treating someone less favorably (a denial of
equal employment opportunity) because he or she (or his or her ancestors) comes from a
particular place or because he or she has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a
national origin group
T/F National origin discrimination claims are the 2nd fastest growing category under Title VII,
after religious discrimination. - ANS✔✔ True
Title VII prohibits national origin discrimination based on one's: - ANS✔✔ Ancestry: country of
birth
Physical characteristics associated with national origin: i.e., hair, facial features, color, height,
weight
Cultural characteristics and perception: i.e., name, dress, accent
Linguistics: accent
Association with someone of a particular national origin: i.e., white person who is married to an
Iranian
Membership in an organization that is affiliated with a certain national origin
With regard to linguistics and accent, however: - ANS✔✔ an employer is permitted to choose
not to hire or promote, or to terminate, an employee that requires clear oral communication in
English if the employee's accent substantially affects her ability to communicate clearly (BFOQ).
*A teacher's termination was upheld where the teacher spoke English but spoke with such a
thick accent that her students had difficulty understanding her.*
,A plaintiff must prove the following factors for a prima facia case for disparate treatment: -
ANS✔✔ Employee belongs to a protected class under Title VII
Employee applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants
Employee was rejected and, after the rejection, the position remained open
Employer continued to seek applicants with the same qualifications that the rejected applicant
has
2nd Element of Prima Facia case - ANS✔✔ Employee was "qualified" for the position.
No employer accommodation is required for one's national origin (unlike disability and religion,
as we shall see later in the course).
No requirement for an employer to accommodate an employee's dress or attire of national
origin (i.e., traditional African dress).
Employer's defense to Disparate *Treatment* claim: - ANS✔✔ Legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason (LNDR)
or
bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) to show that employee is not qualified
BFOQ: - ANS✔✔ Reasonably necessary for the employer's particular business.
, The basis for preferring one national origin over another must go to the essence of what the
employer is in business to do. BFOQ is a defense to a disparate treatment discrimination claim
and is provided in 42 USC 2000e-2(e)
Employer's defense to Disparate *Impact* claim: - ANS✔✔ Business necessity as to why a
specific national origin (i.e., English-speaking country) is necessary for the position.
Can an employer have a policy requiring all employees to be fluent in English? - ANS✔✔ Per
EEOC yes, but only if fluency is required to perform the work effectively.
Fluency example:
Jorge, a Dominican national, applies for a sales position with XYZ Appliances, a small retailer of
home appliances in a non-bilingual, English-speaking community. Jorge has very limited skill
with spoken English. XYZ notifies him that he is not qualified for a sales position because his
ability to effectively assist customers is limited. However, XYZ offers to consider him for a
position in the stock room.
Does this violate Title VII? - ANS✔✔ No, Under these circumstances, XYZ's decision to exclude
Jorge from the sales position *does not* violate Title VII
EEOC's position on requiring all employees to speak only English while in the workplace? -
ANS✔✔ Although Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of language (language is
not a protected category under Title VII), nevertheless, employers should be aware that since
2001, the EEOC has been targeting employers that implement English-only policies
EEOC's position is that an English-only policy that restricts employees from speaking a language
other than English at all times violates Title VII, and most courts have dutifully obeyed the
EEOC's position
