Solution Manual
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 The Regulation of Employment
Chapter 2 The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring
Legal Concepts
Chapter 3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Chapter 4 Legal Construction of the Employment Environment Chapter 5
Affirmative Action
Chapter 6 Race and Color Discrimination
Chapter 7 National Origin Discrimination
Chapter 8 Gender Discrimination Chapter 9
Sexual Harassment
Chapter 10 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Chapter 11
Religious Discrimination
Chapter 12 Age Discrimination Chapter 13
Disability Discrimination
Chapter 14 The Employee’s Right to Privacy and Management of Personal
Information
Chapter 15 Labor Law 857
Chapter 16 Selected Employment Benefits and Protections
Chapter 1
, The Regulation of Employment
Chapter Objective
The student is introduced to the regulatory environment of the employment relationship. The
chapter examines whether regulation is actually necessary or beneficial or if, perhaps, the
relationship would fare better with less governmental intervention. The concepts of ―freedom‖
to contract in the regulatory employment environment and non-compete agreements are
discussed. Since the regulations and case law discussed in this text rely on an individual‘s
classification as an employer or an employee, those definitions are delineated and explored.
Learning Objectives
(Click on the icon following the learning objective to be linked to the location in the outlinewhere
the chapter addresses that particular objective.)
At the conclusion of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Describe the balance between the freedom to contract and the current
regulatory environment for employment.
2. Identify who is subject to which employment laws and understand the implication of eachof
these laws for both the employer and employee.
3. Delineate the risks to the employer caused by employee misclassification.
4. Explain the difference between and employee and an independent contractor and the
tests that help us in that determination.
5. Articulate the various ways in which the concept ―employer‖ is defined by the
various employment-related regulations.
6. Describe the permissible parameters of non-compete agreements.
Detailed Chapter Outline
Scenarios—Points for Discussion
, Scenario One: This scenario offers an opportunity to review the distinctions between an
employee and an independent contractor discussed in the chapter (see ―The Definition of
Employee,‖ particularly Exhibits 1.3–1.5). Discuss the IRS 20-factor analysis, as it applies to
Dalia‘s position. In light of the low level of control that Dalia had over her fees and her work
process, and the limits upon her choice of clients, students should come to the conclusion that
Dalia is an employee (therefore, eligible to file an unemployment claim), rather than an
independent contractor.
Scenario Two: Soraya would not have a cause of action that would be recognized by the
EEOC. Review the section ―The Definition of ‗Employer‘‖ with students, and discuss the
rationale that determines the status of a supervisor vis-à-vis anti-discrimination legislation.
Because Soraya is Soraya‘s supervisor, not her employer, he cannot be the target of an EEOC
claim of sexual harassment.
CCC, Soraya‘s employer, would be vulnerable to an EEOC claim if the company lacked or
failedto follow a system for employee redress of discrimination grievances. However, in this case,
CCC appears to have a viable anti-discrimination policy that it adhered to diligently;
consequently, Soraya would be unlikely to win a decision in her favor. The court in Williams v.
Banning (1995) offered the following rationale for its decision in a similar case:
―She has an employer who was sensitive and responsive to her complaint. She can take
comfort in the knowledge that she continues to work for this company, while her harasser
does not and that the company's prompt action is likely to discourage other would be
harassers. This is precisely the result Title VII was meant to achieve.‖
Scenario Three: Students should discuss whether or not Mya non-compete agreement is likely tobe
found reasonable by a court, and elaborate the aspects of the agreement that Mya might contest
as unreasonable o(see osection obelow, o―Covenants oNot oto oCompete‖). oDoes oMya ohave oa
opersuasive o argument othat othe oterms oof oher onon-compete oagreement oare ounreasonable oin
oscope oor oduration?
Might oshe ohave ogrounds oto oclaim othat othe oagreement oprohibits oher ofrom omaking oa o living?
Given othe odiversity oof ostate olaws oregulating onon-compete oagreements, odiscuss othe orange oof
olegal o restrictions othat omight oapply oto oMya‘s oparticular oagreement owith oher oemployer. oAs
oan oemployeewho o works oacross oseveral ostates, oMya‘s odefense omay odepend oupon othe
opresence—and ospecific o language—of oa oforum oselection oclause oin oher onon-compete
oagreement. oConsider owhat olanguage o would obe omore olikely oto oprovide oNan owith oa ostrong
odefense oagainst othe obreach oof ocontract oclaim.
Mya omight oalso oargue othat othe ocompany‘s oclient olist ois oavailable othrough opublic omeans,
oand o therefore, oher oaccess oto othis olist oshould onot obe oprohibited.
General oLecture oNote ofor oEmployment oLaw oCourse
In oorder oto oteach othis ocourse, oinstructors ohave ofound othat ostudents omust obe omade oto ofeel
orelatively o comfortable owith otheir opeers. oInstructors owill obe oasking othe ostudents oto obe
ohonest oand oto ostay oin o their otruth, oeven oat otimes owhen othey ofeel othat otheir oopinion oon
oone oof othese omatters owill onot obe
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 16
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 The Regulation of Employment
Chapter 2 The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring
Legal Concepts
Chapter 3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Chapter 4 Legal Construction of the Employment Environment Chapter 5
Affirmative Action
Chapter 6 Race and Color Discrimination
Chapter 7 National Origin Discrimination
Chapter 8 Gender Discrimination Chapter 9
Sexual Harassment
Chapter 10 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Chapter 11
Religious Discrimination
Chapter 12 Age Discrimination Chapter 13
Disability Discrimination
Chapter 14 The Employee’s Right to Privacy and Management of Personal
Information
Chapter 15 Labor Law 857
Chapter 16 Selected Employment Benefits and Protections
Chapter 1
, The Regulation of Employment
Chapter Objective
The student is introduced to the regulatory environment of the employment relationship. The
chapter examines whether regulation is actually necessary or beneficial or if, perhaps, the
relationship would fare better with less governmental intervention. The concepts of ―freedom‖
to contract in the regulatory employment environment and non-compete agreements are
discussed. Since the regulations and case law discussed in this text rely on an individual‘s
classification as an employer or an employee, those definitions are delineated and explored.
Learning Objectives
(Click on the icon following the learning objective to be linked to the location in the outlinewhere
the chapter addresses that particular objective.)
At the conclusion of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Describe the balance between the freedom to contract and the current
regulatory environment for employment.
2. Identify who is subject to which employment laws and understand the implication of eachof
these laws for both the employer and employee.
3. Delineate the risks to the employer caused by employee misclassification.
4. Explain the difference between and employee and an independent contractor and the
tests that help us in that determination.
5. Articulate the various ways in which the concept ―employer‖ is defined by the
various employment-related regulations.
6. Describe the permissible parameters of non-compete agreements.
Detailed Chapter Outline
Scenarios—Points for Discussion
, Scenario One: This scenario offers an opportunity to review the distinctions between an
employee and an independent contractor discussed in the chapter (see ―The Definition of
Employee,‖ particularly Exhibits 1.3–1.5). Discuss the IRS 20-factor analysis, as it applies to
Dalia‘s position. In light of the low level of control that Dalia had over her fees and her work
process, and the limits upon her choice of clients, students should come to the conclusion that
Dalia is an employee (therefore, eligible to file an unemployment claim), rather than an
independent contractor.
Scenario Two: Soraya would not have a cause of action that would be recognized by the
EEOC. Review the section ―The Definition of ‗Employer‘‖ with students, and discuss the
rationale that determines the status of a supervisor vis-à-vis anti-discrimination legislation.
Because Soraya is Soraya‘s supervisor, not her employer, he cannot be the target of an EEOC
claim of sexual harassment.
CCC, Soraya‘s employer, would be vulnerable to an EEOC claim if the company lacked or
failedto follow a system for employee redress of discrimination grievances. However, in this case,
CCC appears to have a viable anti-discrimination policy that it adhered to diligently;
consequently, Soraya would be unlikely to win a decision in her favor. The court in Williams v.
Banning (1995) offered the following rationale for its decision in a similar case:
―She has an employer who was sensitive and responsive to her complaint. She can take
comfort in the knowledge that she continues to work for this company, while her harasser
does not and that the company's prompt action is likely to discourage other would be
harassers. This is precisely the result Title VII was meant to achieve.‖
Scenario Three: Students should discuss whether or not Mya non-compete agreement is likely tobe
found reasonable by a court, and elaborate the aspects of the agreement that Mya might contest
as unreasonable o(see osection obelow, o―Covenants oNot oto oCompete‖). oDoes oMya ohave oa
opersuasive o argument othat othe oterms oof oher onon-compete oagreement oare ounreasonable oin
oscope oor oduration?
Might oshe ohave ogrounds oto oclaim othat othe oagreement oprohibits oher ofrom omaking oa o living?
Given othe odiversity oof ostate olaws oregulating onon-compete oagreements, odiscuss othe orange oof
olegal o restrictions othat omight oapply oto oMya‘s oparticular oagreement owith oher oemployer. oAs
oan oemployeewho o works oacross oseveral ostates, oMya‘s odefense omay odepend oupon othe
opresence—and ospecific o language—of oa oforum oselection oclause oin oher onon-compete
oagreement. oConsider owhat olanguage o would obe omore olikely oto oprovide oNan owith oa ostrong
odefense oagainst othe obreach oof ocontract oclaim.
Mya omight oalso oargue othat othe ocompany‘s oclient olist ois oavailable othrough opublic omeans,
oand o therefore, oher oaccess oto othis olist oshould onot obe oprohibited.
General oLecture oNote ofor oEmployment oLaw oCourse
In oorder oto oteach othis ocourse, oinstructors ohave ofound othat ostudents omust obe omade oto ofeel
orelatively o comfortable owith otheir opeers. oInstructors owill obe oasking othe ostudents oto obe
ohonest oand oto ostay oin o their otruth, oeven oat otimes owhen othey ofeel othat otheir oopinion oon
oone oof othese omatters owill onot obe
