WGU C233 Employment Law Part A Exam 297
Questions with Verified Answers
There are two requirements to trigger liability for race-based harassment: -
CORRECT ANSWER The conduct must be unwelcome; and
The conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and
conditions of employment in the mind of the victim and from the perspective of a
reasonable person in the victim's position.
EEOC statistics show that, annually, 20 percent of employee complaints of
religious discrimination involve - CORRECT ANSWER bias against Muslims.
Supreme Court in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 - CORRECT ANSWER -
age and seniority are "analytically distinct" from each other in the ADEA context.
- a paper company's decision to terminate an employee because his pension was
about to "vest" did not violate the ADEA. That is, the decision was made due to
years of service and "vesting," not due to the employee's age.
- the Supreme Court noted that the ADEA was designed to eliminate practices
based upon the negative and unsupported age stereotypes of reduced
performance and competence and that the paper company's decision was not
motivated by these considerations.
* Notwithstanding the Hazen case, and because of the high correlation between
salary and age, federal courts are not unified regarding the issue of whether RIF
plans based solely on salary constitutes disparate impact under the ADEA.
General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc v. Cline - CORRECT ANSWER - Virtually every
federal court hearing age discrimination claims has ignored the EEOC regulation
,and concluded that the ADEA's protections do not provide a cause of action to
younger workers within the protected class who complained that older workers
were treated more favorably.
- The United States Supreme Court held that employers may always favor the old
over the young, even with both candidates being 40 years of age and older. Justice
Souter wrote that "the enemy of 40 is 30 not 50." The idea was that without this
rule, all retirement and seniority plans would be rendered null.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) and Faragher v. Boca
Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
This is often called the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. - CORRECT ANSWER -
When a supervisor has engaged in sexual harassment, the employer may,
nevertheless, raise an affirmative defense.
- The Supreme Court held that an employer may avoid liability for supervisor
harassment by proving affirmatively that: 1) the employer exercised reasonable
care to prevent and correct the harassment - through training and policy
enforcement; and 2) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the
preventative or corrective opportunities that the employer provided.
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399 (1986)(Meritor) -
CORRECT ANSWER - The seminal case for hostile environment sexual harassment
- Vinson claimed Taylor, a bank vice president, had coerced her into having
repeated sexual relations with him. Vinson claimed Taylor also touched her in
public, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her multiple times. Vinson could
not show the sexual relations resulted in any tangible job action.
- The U.S. Supreme Court held, for the first time, that Title VII prohibits sexual
harassment which creates a hostile, intimidating work environment, even if the
harassment does not cause a direct financial injury.
,If after a rejected sexual advance an employee receives an unanticipated favorable
job outcome, like an unscheduled raise, a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment
- CORRECT ANSWER may still exist under the theory that the raise is designed to
induce the employee to accept the sexual advance.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins - CORRECT ANSWER - An important area of gender
discrimination is the stereotyping of how a male or how a female should act.
- a highly qualified female employee, Hopkins, was entitled to relief under Title VII
for being denied promotion at a prestigious accountancy firm because she did not
conform to traditional views of how a woman should act at work.
McDonnell Douglas, Corp. v. Green. - CORRECT ANSWER - The foundational case
that established the notion of pretextual discrimination
- Green, an African-American mechanic at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis, was laid
off following a downturn in firm business. Green believed his discharge was
racially motivated and became involved in several illegal worker demonstrations
against the company. Later, McDonnell Douglass advertised for job openings for
mechanics and Green applied. He was rejected on the basis of his involvement in
illegal activity against the firm. Green sued under Title VII, arguing the real reason
for his job application rejection was his race and involvement in civil rights
matters.
- The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately heard the matter and developed the prima
facie case for determining if a proffered employer's reason for an adverse hire
decision was merely pretext. The U.S. Supreme court remanded the matter to the
lower court to conduct a hearing under th
Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971) - CORRECT ANSWER The seminal case
establishing the concept of disparate impact
, - black workers were overtly limited to low-paying labor jobs, while higher-paying
positions were reserved for white persons
- U.S. Supreme Court found that, while no evidence existed that the imposition of
the test mandates were intended to be discriminatory, Duke Power had
nevertheless failed to establish that the tests were meaningfully connected to job
performance.
- Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to codify the concept of disparate
impact discrimination as articulated in Griggs v. Duke Power.
The EEOC conducts enforcement litigation for several federal statutes in addition
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws include: - CORRECT ANSWER
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform
substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage
discrimination;
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects
individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (Title I and Title V), and its 2008
Amendments (ADAAA), which prohibit disability discrimination in the private
sector;
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 501 and 505), which prohibit
discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the
federal government;
The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows for compensatory and punitive damages
for violations of Title VII; and
The Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA),
which protects military personnel from employment discrimination.
Questions with Verified Answers
There are two requirements to trigger liability for race-based harassment: -
CORRECT ANSWER The conduct must be unwelcome; and
The conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and
conditions of employment in the mind of the victim and from the perspective of a
reasonable person in the victim's position.
EEOC statistics show that, annually, 20 percent of employee complaints of
religious discrimination involve - CORRECT ANSWER bias against Muslims.
Supreme Court in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 - CORRECT ANSWER -
age and seniority are "analytically distinct" from each other in the ADEA context.
- a paper company's decision to terminate an employee because his pension was
about to "vest" did not violate the ADEA. That is, the decision was made due to
years of service and "vesting," not due to the employee's age.
- the Supreme Court noted that the ADEA was designed to eliminate practices
based upon the negative and unsupported age stereotypes of reduced
performance and competence and that the paper company's decision was not
motivated by these considerations.
* Notwithstanding the Hazen case, and because of the high correlation between
salary and age, federal courts are not unified regarding the issue of whether RIF
plans based solely on salary constitutes disparate impact under the ADEA.
General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc v. Cline - CORRECT ANSWER - Virtually every
federal court hearing age discrimination claims has ignored the EEOC regulation
,and concluded that the ADEA's protections do not provide a cause of action to
younger workers within the protected class who complained that older workers
were treated more favorably.
- The United States Supreme Court held that employers may always favor the old
over the young, even with both candidates being 40 years of age and older. Justice
Souter wrote that "the enemy of 40 is 30 not 50." The idea was that without this
rule, all retirement and seniority plans would be rendered null.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) and Faragher v. Boca
Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
This is often called the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. - CORRECT ANSWER -
When a supervisor has engaged in sexual harassment, the employer may,
nevertheless, raise an affirmative defense.
- The Supreme Court held that an employer may avoid liability for supervisor
harassment by proving affirmatively that: 1) the employer exercised reasonable
care to prevent and correct the harassment - through training and policy
enforcement; and 2) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the
preventative or corrective opportunities that the employer provided.
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399 (1986)(Meritor) -
CORRECT ANSWER - The seminal case for hostile environment sexual harassment
- Vinson claimed Taylor, a bank vice president, had coerced her into having
repeated sexual relations with him. Vinson claimed Taylor also touched her in
public, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her multiple times. Vinson could
not show the sexual relations resulted in any tangible job action.
- The U.S. Supreme Court held, for the first time, that Title VII prohibits sexual
harassment which creates a hostile, intimidating work environment, even if the
harassment does not cause a direct financial injury.
,If after a rejected sexual advance an employee receives an unanticipated favorable
job outcome, like an unscheduled raise, a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment
- CORRECT ANSWER may still exist under the theory that the raise is designed to
induce the employee to accept the sexual advance.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins - CORRECT ANSWER - An important area of gender
discrimination is the stereotyping of how a male or how a female should act.
- a highly qualified female employee, Hopkins, was entitled to relief under Title VII
for being denied promotion at a prestigious accountancy firm because she did not
conform to traditional views of how a woman should act at work.
McDonnell Douglas, Corp. v. Green. - CORRECT ANSWER - The foundational case
that established the notion of pretextual discrimination
- Green, an African-American mechanic at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis, was laid
off following a downturn in firm business. Green believed his discharge was
racially motivated and became involved in several illegal worker demonstrations
against the company. Later, McDonnell Douglass advertised for job openings for
mechanics and Green applied. He was rejected on the basis of his involvement in
illegal activity against the firm. Green sued under Title VII, arguing the real reason
for his job application rejection was his race and involvement in civil rights
matters.
- The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately heard the matter and developed the prima
facie case for determining if a proffered employer's reason for an adverse hire
decision was merely pretext. The U.S. Supreme court remanded the matter to the
lower court to conduct a hearing under th
Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971) - CORRECT ANSWER The seminal case
establishing the concept of disparate impact
, - black workers were overtly limited to low-paying labor jobs, while higher-paying
positions were reserved for white persons
- U.S. Supreme Court found that, while no evidence existed that the imposition of
the test mandates were intended to be discriminatory, Duke Power had
nevertheless failed to establish that the tests were meaningfully connected to job
performance.
- Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to codify the concept of disparate
impact discrimination as articulated in Griggs v. Duke Power.
The EEOC conducts enforcement litigation for several federal statutes in addition
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws include: - CORRECT ANSWER
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform
substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage
discrimination;
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects
individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (Title I and Title V), and its 2008
Amendments (ADAAA), which prohibit disability discrimination in the private
sector;
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 501 and 505), which prohibit
discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the
federal government;
The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows for compensatory and punitive damages
for violations of Title VII; and
The Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA),
which protects military personnel from employment discrimination.
