applicants. When Robin reminds her supervisor that Title VII prohibits race discrimination she finds herself being
removed from the interview process and all tasks related to the hiring process. In the above case, Banes & Obel:
a. has not violated Title VII since there was no discrimination during the interview process.
b. has not violated Title VII if they can prove the open positions in the organization were not suitable for minority
candidates.
c. has clearly violated Title VII by instructing Robin to not hire minority applicants.
d. has not violated Title VII since Robin is no longer part of the decision-making process.
40. A telephonic marketing firm is looking at establishing themselves in Florida. Because of the nature of its work, the
firm decides to hire only people who speak fluent English and not to hire any person who has a noticeable accent or, in the
words of the marketing manager, “who have any native influences to their accent.” The company’s hiring policy:
a. supports Title VII.
b. cannot fall under Title VII.
c. clearly violates Title VII.
d. does not violate Title VII.
41. At Your Home, a service provider offers healthcare assistance for elderly or disabled persons at their place of
residence. Since most of the clients require total physical care including assistance to get dressed or move around the
house, At Your Home screens applicants for employment by using a strength test. The applicants must be able to lift a
dummy weighing 175 pounds. The strength test disqualifies most female applicants, as well as a majority of Asian male
applicants. To avoid violation of Title VII, At Your Home should use:
a. construct validity.
b. content validity.
c. criterion-related validity.
d. both construct and content validity.
42. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court held that:
a. a plaintiff need to demonstrate and prove that the defendant used multiple prohibited factors (race, color, gender,
religion, or natural origin) as a motive for an employment action.
b. the plaintiff’s demonstration for a “mixed motive” situation can only be made by circumstantial evidence.
c. if an employer has considered an illegal factor under Title VII (race, sex, color, religion, or national origin) in
making an employment decision, the employer must demonstrate that it would have reached the same decision if it had
not considered the illegal factor.
d. the employer violates Title VII when an illegal factor is considered, even though there may have been other
factors also motivating the decision or practice.
43. Which section of Title VII prohibits retaliation by the employer against employee because that person opposed any
practice that is prohibited by Title VII?
a. Section 707(h)
b. Section 704(a)
c. Section 706(g)(2)(b)
d. Section 703(a) and (d)