290. Which of the following questions would not violate the Americans with Disability Act to ask of a job applicant:
a. how many sick days did you use last year?
b. does stress at work ever bother you?
c. are you capable of doing the rigors demanded of this job?
d. have you been treated for drug abuse?
e. all other choices would violate the law
291. Which of the following questions would not violate the Americans with Disability Act to ask of a job applicant:
a. how many sick days did you use last year?
b. does stress at work ever bother you?
c. are you capable of doing the rigors demanded of this job?
d. none of the other choices would violate the law
e. all of the other choices could violate the law
292. It is illegal, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to ask a potential employee which of the following questions:
a. do you have AIDS?
b. have you ever been treated for mental health problems?
c. have you ever been treated for drug addiction?
d. are you an alcoholic?
e. all of the other specific choices are illegal
293. It is NOT illegal, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to ask a potential employee which of the following
questions:
a. do you have AIDS?
b. have you ever been treated for mental health problems?
c. have you ever been treated for drug addiction?
d. have you ever held a position like this before?
e. all of the other specific choices are illegal
294. It is NOT illegal, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to ask a potential employee which of the following
questions:
a. do you have AIDS?
b. have you ever been treated for mental health problems?
c. have you ever been treated for drug addiction?
d. are you currently using illegal drugs?
e. all of the other specific choices are illegal
295. It is NOT illegal, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to ask a potential employee which of the following
questions:
a. do you have AIDS?
b. have you ever been treated for mental health problems?
c. have you ever been treated for drug addiction?
d. have you ever been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol?
e. all of the other specific choices are illegal
296. Kelsey is being interviewed for a job and she volunteers that she has diabetes and has to occasionally take breaks
to give herself insulin shots. The interviewer asks her how often she needs to take these breaks and how long the
breaks take. These questions are:
a. not illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act
b. illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act
c. illegal in California, but not in other states
d. illegal if the interviewer is a man, but not if it is a woman
e. none of the other choices are correct
297. Physical exams for new employees are legal if:
a. the same test is given to all new employees
b. the results are kept confidential
c. the exams are related to the ability to do the job
d. all of the other specific choices are necessary to make physical exams legal
e. physical exams for new employees are never legal
298. Which of the following would not be a violation of the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act,
because it goes beyond the scope of the legislation?
a. using standardized tests that screen out people with disabilities
b. refusing to hire job applicants because they have a history of drug abuse
c. asking job applicants if they have disabilities
d. not hiring a disabled person because the bathrooms cannot accommodate wheelchairs
e. all of the other choices are likely illegal
299. Which of the following would not be likely to be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because it goes
beyond the scope of the legislation?
a. using standardized tests that screen out people with disabilities
b. refusing to hire job applicants because they have a history of drug abuse
c. refusing to hire a job applicant because an assembly line for automobiles cannot accommodate workers in
wheelchairs
d. not hiring a disabled person because the bathrooms cannot accommodate wheelchairs
e. asking job applicants if they have disabilities
300. Which of the following would not be likely to be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because it goes
beyond the scope of the legislation?
a. using standardized tests that screen out people with disabilities
b. refusing to hire job applicants because they have a history of drug abuse
c. asking job applicants if they have disabilities
d. not hiring a disabled person because the bathrooms cannot accommodate wheelchairs
e. all of the other choices are likely to be violations
Fact Pattern 17-1
Loretta worked for Minute Dry Cleaners as a cashier, and also did ironing when extra help was needed. Soon after
she was hired, her boss, John, began to make suggestive comments to her. He complemented Loretta on her
clothes and her looks. Several times, when they were in the store alone, John cornered Loretta and told her that she
was driving him crazy, and that she just had to date him. Loretta told John that she already seeing someone and
backed away.
John cornered her again. He told her that he had waited long enough, and that if she wanted to keep her job she
was going to have to “put out.” He grabbed her arm, but she got away to the counter. She told John to keep away
from her. He laughed, and asked her what she was going to do. He said he knew she needed the job, because she
was fired from her previous jobs for drug problems. If she didn’t get along with him, he would fire her and tell
people it was because she came to work stoned.
Loretta quit the next day. She filed a complaint against John with the local EEO office. John told EEO he fired
Loretta was because of her drinking on the job. He referred them to Loretta’s past work record which showed a
drug problem. Loretta insisted that John harassed her and that she had not been drinking while at Minute.
301. Refer to Fact Pattern 17-1. After Loretta notifies the EEO office of her complaint against John, the EEO will:
a. notify Minute Cleaners of the complaint and investigate Loretta’s claims
b. sue Minute in the local district court based Loretta’s claim
c. immediately issue a “right–to–sue” letter
d. issue an injunction against John barring him from working at Minute Cleaners
e. all of the other choices are possible
302. Refer to Fact Pattern 17-1. If Loretta lived in a jurisdiction that followed the common law only, what would be the
result of her suing John for employment discrimination? She would:
a. win because John created a hostile work environment
b. win because John broke his employment contract with her
c. lose because she violated the Statute of Frauds by not informing John of her past drinking problems
d. lose because of at-will employment
e. lose because women were not permitted to work under the common law
303. Refer to Fact Pattern 17-1. If the EEOC issues a “right-to–sue” letter to Loretta, this means that her case against
Minute:
a. may not be challenged by the dry cleaner.
b. has merit and she may proceed with a suit against her employer
c. is without merit and she may not sue her employer
d. is without merit and she may sue John only
e. none of the other choices are accurate
304. Refer to Fact Pattern 17-1. Suppose after Loretta leaves Minute Cleaners she applies to work at Hour Cleaning.
Hour has advertised that it needs help. The day after Loretta fills out her application, Hour tells her they are not
interested. Loretta learns that Hour only hires handsome men, who attract lots of customers. If Loretta pursues a
discrimination action against Hour, she would need to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The test for
which was elaborated in:
a. U.S. v. Paradise
b. Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
c. Johnson v. Transportation Agency of Santa Clara
d. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
e. McDonnell–Douglas Corp. v. Green
305. Refer to Fact Pattern 17–1. Suppose Loretta files a complaint against Hour for discrimination, based on the fact that
Hour hires only men. To establish a prima facie case against Hour, Loretta would need to prove all of the following
except that:
a. she applied for the job with Hour and met the qualifications for the job they had open
b. Hour intended to discriminate against women
c. Hour continued to seek applications from other people with similar qualifications
d. she was rejected for employment by Hour
e. she belongs to a protected class
306. Refer to Fact Pattern 17-1. Under Title VII, Loretta is a member of a protected class based on sex. If she were
also divorced, she would be given:
a. added protection due to sexual harassment
b. added protection under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
c. added protection under the Disabilities Act
d. added protection under the McDonnell–Douglas test
e. no additional protection
307. Refer to Fact Pattern 17-1. Loretta files a complaint against Minute Cleaners and John based on sexual
harassment. John appears to have committed which type(s) of sexual harassment against Loretta?
a. quid pro quo harassment
b. disparate harassment
c. hostile work environment harassment
d. quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment
e. quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment and disparate harassment
308. Refer to Fact Pattern 17-1. If a court applied the standard from Harris v. Forklift Systems, to Loretta’s case, what
would the outcome be?
a. cause her case to be dismissed
b. cause Minute to win because they had no notice of John’s offensive behavior
c. perhaps weaken her case against the owner but not against John
d. cause John‘s actions to be interpreted as creating a hostile or abusive work environment
e. cause her to lose due to failure to produce preponderance of the evidence
309. Refer to Fact Pattern 17-1. Suppose when John found out that Loretta had a drug problem he became furious,
because he knows that employees with drug problems tend to have higher medical bills. On the basis of her past
drug problems, John fires Loretta. If Loretta challenged the dismissal, the court would find that:
a. John had a rational reason for dismissing Loretta
b. John violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
c. John‘s behavior might not be nice, but he violated no law
d. Minute violated the disabilities provisions of Title VII
e. the action was justified if Minute had a drug policy