33. Refer to Scenario 2.1. Suppose Conchita and Maureen are equally qualified and Tia flips a coin to decide
between them. The coin lands on tails and accordingly Tia hires Maureen. This action would probably be
a violation of Executive Order 11246.
a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
a violation of Title VII.
not a violation of Title VII because the other employees are primarily Hispanic.
permissible under Title VII because the applicants were treated equally.
34. Refer to Scenario 2.1. Suppose Conchita and Maureen are equally qualified but Tia must raise the stove
at a cost of $10,000 to accommodate Maureen’s wheelchair. To avoid the expense, Tia hires Conchita. It
is likely this action is
lawful under ADA because the applicants were equally qualified.
unlawful under Title VII because the applicants were of different races.
lawful under ADA if the accommodation was an undue hardship on Tia.
lawful under ADA. Maureen is not considered disabled under ADA because her disability is
correctable with a wheelchair.
unlawful under the ADA because Tia has to accommodate Maureen regardless of expense.
35. Refer to Scenario 2.1. Suppose Tia hires Sancho and requires him to take a drug test because of safety
issues on the job. Can Tia legally require this?
Yes. Tia can require Sancho to take a drug test.
Yes. However, Tia can only require Sancho to take a drug test before making a job offer.
No. This would be against the FLSA.
No. This would violate the ADA.
No. This would violate the ADEA.
TRUE/FALSE
36. One catalyst for modifying or enhancing the human resource legal environment may be social change.
37. In some cases, a regulation may be unintentionally ambiguous or may be interpreted by the courts in
different ways over time.