Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
165. Which of the following could be used as evidence in a discrimination trial that the employer's rationale was just
pretext for disparate treatment:
a. inconsistency in decision made by the employer
b. giving different reasons at different times for the decision
c. statistical evidence of discrimination based on sex
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct
166. If workers are punished for participating in an official proceeding, such as filing an employment discrimination
complaint or giving testimony in a discrimination investigation, they would have grounds for suit based on:
a. sex discrimination
b. retaliation
c. court discrimination
d. disparate treatment
e. pretext
167. If workers are punished for participating in an official proceeding, such as filing an employment discrimination
complaint or giving testimony in a discrimination investigation, they would have grounds for suit based on:
a. sex discrimination
b. pretext
c. court discrimination
d. disparate treatment
e. none of the other choices are correct
168. In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C., where Lewis sued for violation of her Title VII rights, contending
that she was fired for not conforming to sex stereotypes and in retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices, the
appeals court held that:
a. Heartland's proffered reason for Lewis's termination was pretextual and the district court's ruling for
Heartland should be reversed
b. Heartland's proffered reason for Lewis's termination was not pretextual and the district court's ruling against
Heartland should be reversed
c. Heartland's proffered reason for Lewis's termination was not pretextual and the district court's ruling for
Heartland should be reversed
d. Heartland's proffered reason for Lewis's termination was sufficient explanation for her termination
e. Lewis could not sue for sex discrimination since the person who fired her was also a woman
169. In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C., where Lewis sued for violation of her Title VII rights, contending
that she was fired for not conforming to sex stereotypes and in retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices, the
appeals court held that:
a. Lewis could not sue for sex discrimination since the person who fired her was also a woman
b. Heartland's proffered reason for Lewis's termination was not pretextual and the district court's ruling against
Heartland should be reversed
c. Heartland's proffered reason for Lewis's termination was not pretextual and the district court's ruling for
Heartland should be reversed
d. Heartland's proffered reason for Lewis's termination was sufficient explanation for her termination
e. none of the other choices are correct
170. In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C., where Lewis sued for violation of her Title VII rights, contending
that she was fired for not conforming to sex stereotypes and in retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices, the
appeals court applied:
a. the four-part framework from the McDonnell-Douglas decision for making a prima facie case
b. the four-part framework from the Constitution for making a prima facie case
c. the standard Title VII test for discrimination
d. the two-part framework from the Sullivan-Douglas decision for making a sex discrimination case
e. the National Discrimination Standard
171. In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C., where Lewis sued for violation of her Title VII rights, contending
that she was fired for not conforming to sex stereotypes and in retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices, the
appeals court applied:
a. the National Discrimination Standard
b. the four-part framework from the Constitution for making a prima facie case
c. the standard Title VII test for discrimination
d. the two-part framework from the Sullivan-Douglas decision for making a sex discrimination case
e. none of the other choices are correct
172. To reduce the likelihood of discrimination cases, employers:
a. must pay annual fees to the EEOC
b. should have clear, effective policy and procedures to allow employees to make complaints about perceived
discrimination
c. should bribe employees not to sue
d. should reward employees who ignore discrimination
e. should have posters that indicate that discrimination is not tolerated in the workplace
173. In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, concerning the liability of a firm for discrimination that occurs in the workplace
when a hostile environment is created by a supervisor, the Supreme Court held that:
a. the supervisor is personally liable, but the firm is not
b. the firm is strictly liable
c. the firm may be vicariously liable even if the employee suffered no adverse job consequences
d. the firm is liable only if it is shown that the employee suffered adverse job consequences
e. none of the other choices
174. In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, concerning the liability of a firm for discrimination that occurs in the workplace
when a hostile environment is created by a supervisor, the Supreme Court held that:
a. the supervisor is personally liable, but the firm is not
b. the firm is strictly liable
c. the firm is liable only if it is shown that there was a quid pro quo
d. the firm is liable only if it is shown that the employee suffered adverse job consequences
e. none of the other choices
175. In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, concerning the liability of a firm for discrimination that occurs in the workplace
when an employee claimed she was subject to sexual harassment by her supervisor, but never reported the matter
to superiors, the Supreme Court held that:
a. if it was quid pro quo harassment, not hostile work environment, then the firm is liable if the discrimination is
proven
b. if it was hostile work environment, not quid pro quo harassment, then the firm is liable if the discrimination is
proven
c. if it was either hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment, then the firm is liable if the
discrimination is proven
d. it does not matter whether it was hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment, the firm is likely to
be vicariously liable if it did not have an effective anti-harassment policy
e. none of the other choices
176. In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, concerning the liability of a firm for discrimination that occurs in the workplace
when an employee claimed she was subject to sexual harassment by her supervisor, but never reported the matter
to superiors, the Supreme Court held that:
a. if it was quid pro quo harassment, not hostile work environment, then the firm is liable if the discrimination is
proven
b. if it was hostile work environment, not quid pro quo harassment, then the firm is liable if the discrimination is
proven
c. if it was either hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment, then the firm is liable if the
discrimination is proven
d. firms are not subject to liability in either case so long as they have a sexual harassment policy in place
e. none of the other choices
177. In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders the Supreme Court noted that in
a case where discrimination in the workplace is claimed, and the employee quits and claims constructive discharge
for hostile environment:
a. if it was not quid pro quo harassment then a higher standard of proof for hostile work environment must be
met
b. if a hostile work environment is shown, a rule of strict liability is applied
c. a key defense will be if the employer had a proper anti-harassment procedure in place that the plaintiff failed
use before quitting
d. it does not matter whether it was hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment, the firm is likely to
be vicariously liable unless the employee had a poor work record
e. none of the other choices
178. In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders the Supreme Court noted that in
a case where discrimination in the workplace is claimed, and the employee quits and claims constructive discharge
for hostile environment:
a. if it was not quid pro quo harassment then a higher standard of proof for hostile work environment must be
met
b. if a hostile work environment is shown, a rule of strict liability is applied
c. the theory of respondeat superior applies and the employer is liable if it allowed harassment to occur
d. it does not matter whether it was hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment, the firm is likely to
be vicariously liable unless the employee had a poor work record
e. none of the other choices
179. In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders the Supreme Court noted that in a case where discrimination in the
workplace is claimed, and the employee quits and claims constructive discharge for hostile environment:
a. the employee must remain on the job while seeking redress
b. the employee need not remain on the job while seeking redress
c. the employee must exhaust all other options before quitting
d. the employee must give the employer at least 3 chances to make amends before quitting
e. the employer is liable for up to three months' worth of wages
180. In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders the Supreme Court noted that in a case where discrimination in the
workplace is claimed, and the employee quits and claims constructive discharge for hostile environment:
a. the employee must remain on the job while seeking redress
b. the employer is liable for up to three months' worth of wages
c. the employee must exhaust all other options before quitting
d. the employee must give the employer at least 3 chances to make amends before quitting
e. none of the other choices are correct
181. In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders the Supreme Court noted that in a case where harassment in the
workplace is "so intolerable as to cause a resignation":
a. constructive discharge is the same as being fired for an illegal reason
b. constructive discharge is not the same as being fired for an illegal reason
c. constructive discharge is legal
d. the employee cannot sue for constructive discharge because she did not remain on the job while seeking
redress
e. the employer is automatically liable for no less than three months of wages
182. In Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders the Supreme Court noted that in a case where harassment in the
workplace is "so intolerable as to cause a resignation":
a. the employer is automatically liable for no less than three months of wages
b. constructive discharge is not the same as being fired for an illegal reason
c. constructive discharge is legal
d. the employee cannot sue for constructive discharge because she did not remain on the job while seeking
redress
e. none of the other choices are correct
183. If an employer uses a decision rule that causes discrimination in some aspect of employment based on protected
class status, but the discrimination was unintentional, the discrimination is called:
a. disparate treatment, but is legal so long as not intentional
b. disparate treatment, which is illegal
c. disparate impact, but is legal so long as not intentional
d. disparate impact, which is illegal
e. differential impact, but is legal so long as not intentional
184. Disparate impact discrimination cases are than disparate treatment cases.
a. more complex and less common
b. more complex and more common
c. less complex and more common
d. less complex and less common
e. none of the other choices are correct
185. Disparate impact discrimination cases are than disparate treatment cases.
a. equally complex and more common
b. more complex and more common
c. less complex and more common
d. less complex and less common
e. none of the other choices are correct
186. involve employment practices that appear to be neutral on their face but in fact have a disproportionately
adverse impact on an employee or group of employees who are members of a protected class.
a. disparate treatment cases
b. disparate impact cases
c. age discrimination cases
d. whole class discrimination cases
e. partial class discrimination cases
187. involve employment practices that appear to be neutral on their face but in fact have a disproportionately
adverse impact on an employee or group of employees who are members of a protected class.
a. disparate treatment cases
b. partial class discrimination cases
c. age discrimination cases
d. whole class discrimination cases
e. none of the other choices are correct
188. In bringing a suit charging an employer with a violation of Title VII, the courts recognize what as the theory of the
law?
a. individual instances of disparate treatment or unintentional discrimination
b. neutral rules that perpetuate past discrimination
c. neutral rules that have a disparate impact and are not justified by business necessity
d. individual instances of disparate treatment or unintentional discrimination and neutral rules that have a
disparate impact and are not justified by business necessity only
e. individual instances of disparate treatment or unintentional discrimination and neutral rules that have a
disparate impact and are not justified by business necessity and neutral rules that perpetuate past
discrimination
189. Which of the following is NOT an issue in a disparate impact discrimination case:
a. proof of intent to discriminate
b. existence of rules or practices that affect members of a protected group differently than other workers
c. justification by business necessity or valid job requirements of rules or practices that affect members of a
protected group differently than other workers
d. all of the other specific choices are not issues in a disparate impact discrimination case
e. all of the other specific choices are issues in a disparate impact discrimination case
190. To select an employee from a group of applicants, employers may not use a selection criteria that results in:
a. disparate treatment
b. a perpetuation of past patterns of discrimination
c. disparate impact
d. disparate treatment or disparate impact only
e. disparate treatment or disparate impact or perpetuation of past patterns of discrimination
191. A labor union had once been whites only but is now integrated. Its membership rules used to state that to obtain
employment through the union you had to be related to or recommended by a union member. Such a rule would
now be:
a. not illegal because segregation had been eliminated
b. not illegal because Title VII does not apply to unions
c. illegal because blacks who entered the union would be junior to whites in seniority
d. illegal because it would perpetuate past intentional discrimination
e. none of the other choices
192. In EEOC v. Dial Corp., where Dial used a weight lifting test to see if people were qualified to do the work needed
at a factory, and the EEOC said it discriminated against women, the appeals court held that:
a. such tests of strength are discriminatory against women, so are illegal as disparate impact
b. such tests of strength are part of a bona fide occupational qualification, so are legal
c. the test used here was not a good predictor of ability to do the job, so was discriminatory
d. the test used here was a good predictor of ability to do the job, so it was legal
e. none of the other choices
193. In EEOC v. Dial Corp., where Dial used a weight lifting test to see if people were qualified to do the work needed
at a factory, and the EEOC said it discriminated against women, the appeals court held that:
a. such tests of strength are discriminatory against women, so are illegal as disparate impact
b. such tests of strength are part of a bona fide occupational qualification, so are legal
c. the test was used as a form of harassment toward women
d. the test used here was a good predictor of ability to do the job, so it was legal
e. none of the other choices
194. In EEOC v. Dial Corp., where Dial used a weight lifting test to see if people were qualified to do the work needed
at a factory, and the EEOC said it discriminated against women, the appeals court held that:
a. since the company could convincingly show that the test was sufficiently related to safe and efficient job
performance, it was not discriminatory and not illegal
b. since the company could not convincingly show that the test was sufficiently related to safe and efficient job
performance, it was discriminatory and illegal
c. it was discriminatory for the company to suggest that men are stronger than women
d. the test was discriminatory because women had to lift heavier weights than men
e. the test was discriminatory because women did not have to lift the same weights as men
195. In EEOC v. Dial Corp., where Dial used a weight lifting test to see if people were qualified to do the work needed
at a factory, and the EEOC said it discriminated against women, the appeals court held that:
a. since the company could convincingly show that the test was sufficiently related to safe and efficient job
performance, it was not discriminatory and not illegal
b. since the company could not convincingly show that the test was sufficiently related to safe and efficient job
performance, it was discriminatory and illegal
c. it was discriminatory for the company to suggest that men are stronger than women
d. the test was discriminatory because women had to lift heavier weights than men
e. none of the other choices are correct
196. In general, to require job applicants to pass an aptitude tests is:
a. invalid because they are related to job performance
b. valid if given only to minorities
c. valid if shown to be an accurate predictor of ability to do the job
d. valid if one of the tests certified by the Department of Labor
e. none of the other choices
197. In general, to require job applicants to pass an aptitude tests is:
a. invalid because they are related to job performance
b. valid if given only to minorities
c. valid if given to every job applicant at a company
d. valid if one of the tests certified by the Department of Labor
e. none of the other choices
198. An employer may legally provide differential treatment to its employees based on:
a. merit
b. seniority
c. business necessity
d. merit or seniority only
e. merit, seniority or business necessity
199. An employer may legally provide differential treatment to its employees based on:
a. merit
b. seniority
c. business necessity
d. merit, seniority or business necessity
e. none of the other choices if they produce "differential results" based on race or sex
200. When employment practices can be shown to discriminate against some employees:
a. the burden is on the courts to prove that the challenged practices are justified as a business necessity and are
job related
b. the burden is on the employees to prove that the challenged practices are justified as a business necessity
and are job related
c. the burden is on the employer to prove that the challenged practices are justified as a business necessity and
are job related
d. there is no defense for a business
e. none of the other choices are correct
201. Employment practices that discriminate against some employees must to be legal.
a. meet the business necessity test
b. meet the impartiality test
c. meet the anti-discrimination test
d. meet the equality of gender test
e. none of the other choices are correct
202. Sam owns Speedy Bricklayers, Inc., a company that specializes in bricklaying. To maintain his business's reputation
for quick, quality bricklaying, Sam requires that all employees are experienced bricklayers. This discriminates
against potential employees who have never laid bricks before. Sam is likely:
a. in violation of Title VII because his employment practices do not pass the business necessity test
b. not in violation of Title VII because his employment practices pass the business necessity test
c. probably in violation of Title VII in some states, but not in others
d. in violation of Title VII because women cannot lay bricks as fast as men
e. in violation of Title VII because people over 40 cannot lay bricks as fast as people under 40
203. Sam owns Speedy Bricklayers, Inc., a company that specializes in bricklaying. To maintain his business's reputation
for quick, quality bricklaying, Sam requires that all employees are experienced bricklayers. This discriminates
against potential employees who have never laid bricks before. Sam is likely:
a. in violation of Title VII because his employment practices do not pass the business necessity test
b. in violation of Title VII because people over 40 cannot lay bricks as fast as people under 40
c. probably in violation of Title VII in some states, but not in others
d. in violation of Title VII because women cannot lay bricks as fast as men
e. none of the other choices are correct
204. Title VII allows what major defenses to employment discrimination charges?
a. professionally developed ability tests, seniority or merit systems, and BFOQ
b. professionally developed ability tests, BFOQ, and unintentional disparate treatment
c. seniority or merit systems, BFOQ, and more than de minimis costs
d. professionally developed intelligence tests, BFOQ, and more than de minimis costs
e. none of the other choices
205. A trucking company has employees who load 100-pound sacks on trucks. Of those who apply for the jobs, one man
in three can lift 100-pound sacks, but only one woman in fifty. As a result, all 40 employees are men. In sex
discrimination suit, the most likely result will be that the company will:
a. lose because the statistics prove the structure of the employment situation is discriminatory
b. lose because it could make smaller sacks smaller, which would increase the number of women who would
be eligible
c. win because there is a business necessity that produces the all male workforce
d. win because the work involved is traditional male work
e. none of the other choices
206. A trucking company has employees who load 100-pound sacks on trucks. Of those who apply for the jobs, one man
in three can lift 100-pound sacks, but only one woman in fifty. As a result, all 40 employees are men. In sex
discrimination suit, the most likely result will be that the company will:
a. lose because the statistics prove the structure of the employment situation is discriminatory
b. lose because it could make smaller sacks smaller, which would increase the number of women who would
be eligible
c. lose because physical tests for hiring are illegal
d. win because the work involved is traditional male work
e. none of the other choices
207. As a rule, when testing of job applicants employers should do which of the following to be within the bounds of the
law:
a. test for general intelligence
b. test for differences in cultural backgrounds
c. test for ability to perform a certain job
d. all of the specific choices are generally acceptable
e. none of the other choices are acceptable
208. According to Title VII, it is to use professionally developed ability tests to determine whether job applicants
possess the necessary skills and attributes.
a. never legal
b. legal as long as there is statistical validation of the tests
c. legal as long as the company has used the test before
d. illegal without a special court issued dispensation
e. none of the other choices are correct
209. Seniority can legally be used to determine which of the following:
a. eligibility for pension plans
b. length of vacations
c. security from layoffs
d. amount of sick leave
e. all of the other specific choices are correct
