Instructor solution manual for employment law for business 10th edition Dawn Bennett-Alexander

SolutionManual
l




EmploymentLawforBusiness,10thEdition,
l l l l l




DawnBennett-Alexander,Chapters1-16
l l l l l

,TABLE OF CONTENTS ll ll




Chapter 1 The Regulation of Employment
l l l l l




Chapter 2 The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring Legal
l l ll ll ll ll ll l l ll l l l ll



Concepts
l




Chapter 3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
ll ll ll ll l ll l ll ll l




Chapter 4 LegalConstructionof the Employment Environment Chapter 5 Affirmative
l ll l l l l l l l l l




ll Action

Chapter 6 Race and Color Discrimination Chapter
l l ll l l l l




7 NationalOriginDiscrimination Chapter8
l l l l l l l




GenderDiscrimination Chapter 9 Sexual
l l ll l l l l




Harassment
l




Chapter 10 SexualOrientationand Gender IdentityDiscrimination Chapter11
l l l l l ll l l l l




ReligiousDiscrimination
l l




Chapter 12 Age Discrimination Chapter13
l l l l l l




DisabilityDiscrimination
l l




Chapter 14 The Employee’s Right to Privacy and Management of Personal
l l ll ll l ll l l ll l




Information

Chapter 15 Labor Law 857
l ll ll ll




Chapter 16 Selected Employment Benefits and Protections
l l l l l l




Chapter 1 ll

, The Regulation of Employment ll ll ll




ChapterObjective l




The student is introduced to the regulatory environment of the employment relationship. The
ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l



l chapter examines whether regulation is actually necessary or beneficial or if, perhaps, the
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l



relationshipwould farebetter with less governmentalintervention. Theconcepts of ―freedom‖ to
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l



l contract in the regulatory employment environment and non-compete agreements are discussed.
l l ll l l ll ll ll ll ll l



l Since the regulations and case law discussed in this text rely on an individual‘s classification as
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



an employer or an employee, those definitions are delineated and explored.
ll l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll




LearningObjectives l




(Click on the icon following the learning objective to be linked to the location in the outlinewhere the
ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll l



chapter addresses that particular objective.)
ll l l ll l ll




At the conclusion of this chapter, the students should be able to:
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



1. Describe the balance between the freedom to contract and the current regulatory l ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll




environment for employment. l l ll l ll



2. Identify who is subject to which employment laws and understand the implication of eachof ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l




these laws for both the employer and employee.
l l ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll




3. Delineate the risks to the employer caused by employee misclassification. l ll ll ll ll ll ll l l ll



4. Explain the difference between and employee and an independent contractor and the tests ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll




that help us in that determination.
l l ll ll ll ll ll ll



5. Articulate the various ways in which the concept ―employer‖ is defined bythe various ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll l l l l




employment-relatedregulations.
l l l ll




6. Describethe permissible parameters of non-compete agreements. l l ll l l ll ll




DetailedChapter Outline l l




Scenarios—Points for Discussion l ll

, Scenario One: This scenario offers an opportunity to review the distinctions between an employee
ll l ll ll ll l ll ll ll l l l l l



andan independentcontractor discussed in thechapter(see―The Definitionof Employee,‖
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l



particularly Exhibits 1.3–1.5). Discuss the IRS 20-factor analysis, as it applies to Dalia‘s position.
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l ll



In light of the low level of control that Dalia had over her fees and her work process, and the limits
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l ll ll ll



upon her choice of clients, students should come to the conclusion that Dalia is an employee
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l ll ll ll



(therefore, eligible to file an unemployment claim), rather than an independentcontractor.
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l l




Scenario Two: Soraya would not have a cause of action that would be recognized bythe EEOC.
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll l ll



lReview the section ―The Definitionof‗Employer‘‖with students,anddiscussthe rationalethat
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l



ldetermines the status of a supervisor vis-à-vis anti-discrimination legislation. Because Soraya is
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



l Soraya‘s supervisor, not her employer, he cannot be the target of an EEOC claim of sexual
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



harassment.
l l




CCC, Soraya‘s employer, would be vulnerable to an EEOC claim if the company lacked or failedto
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



lfollow a system for employee redress of discrimination grievances. However, in this case, CCC
l ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll l ll ll ll



lappears to have a viable anti-discrimination policy that it adhered to diligently; consequently,
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



Soraya would be unlikely to win a decision in her favor. The court in Williams v. Banning (1995)
ll l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



offered the following rationale for its decision in a similar case:
ll ll l l ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll



―Shehasanemployerwhowassensitiveandresponsivetohercomplaint.Shecantake l l l l l l l l l l l l l l



comfort in the knowledge that she continues to work for this company, while her harasser
l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



does not and that the company's prompt action is likely to discourage other would be
l l ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



harassers. This is precisely the result Title VII was meant to achieve.‖
l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll




Scenario Three: Students should discuss whether or not Mya non-compete agreement is likely tobe
ll ll ll ll ll l ll l l ll ll ll ll



lfound reasonable by a court, and elaborate the aspects of the agreement that Mya might contest as
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



unreasonable (seesection below, ―CovenantsNot toCompete‖). Does Mya have a persuasive
l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l



largument that the terms of her non-compete agreement are unreasonable in scope or duration?
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



Might she have grounds to claim that the agreement prohibits her from making a living?
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll




Given the diversity of state laws regulating non-compete agreements, discuss the range of legal
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll



l restrictions that might apply to Mya‘s particular agreement with her employer. As an
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



employeewho works across several states, Mya‘s defense may depend upon the presence—and
ll l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



specific language—of a forum selection clause in her non-compete agreement. Consider what
ll l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll



language would be more likely to provide Nan with a strong defense against the breach of contract
ll l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll



claim.
ll




Mya might also argue that the company‘s client list is available through public means, and
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll



ltherefore, her access to this list should not be prohibited.
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll




General Lecture Note for Employment Law Course ll ll ll ll ll ll




In order to teach this course, instructors have found that students must be made to feel relatively
ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll l ll l ll ll ll ll ll



l comfortable with their peers. Instructors will be asking the students to be honest and to stay in
l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll



l their truth, even at times when they feel that their opinion on one of these matters will not be
l ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll