Chapter 51 – Employment Law
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES:
1. No. With reasoning akin to “taking a victim as she comes,” the court found that Childers’s
weight condition “combined with an injury that arose out of his employment to produce a
single injury.” Prior to the freezer door striking him in the back, there was no evidence that
2. No. Counts was explicitly at at-will employee and signed a contract explicitly stating that.
Though Counts argued that he had been promised “permanent employment,” the court found,
3. Yes. Fleck was a qualified individual with a disability. (This was one of the first cases to be
fully litigated under the standards of the ADA Amendments Act. It is not clear that she would
4. No. The Supreme Court ruled that the BFOQ defense could not justify the defendant’s policy
of excluding certain women from jobs that involve exposure to lead. It stated that Johnson
5. The city should investigate the complaint as it would any claim of harassment. The city
should determine whether the actions about which Griffin complains are directed at her
6. Perhaps. Feliciano’s suit was removed to federal court. The U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia then certified the following question to the West Virginia
51-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 51 – Employment Law
numerous civil and criminal defenses based on that right. The Supreme Court further
explained that, even when the employee can make a prima facie case of wrongful discharge,
7. No. The Supreme Court clarified in this case who is considered to be a supervisor for
purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII harassment cases. An employee is a supervisor
8. Yes. Though the at-will doctrine is the default rule for employment relationships in Missouri,
the state also recognizes the public policy exception to the rule. In this case, Missouri has a
9. No. Beaver was not suffering from a serious health condition as defined under the FMLA, so
10. This problem case is based on a lawsuit that Edward Graning filed against the Capital Area
Rural Transportation System (“System”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas. According to a report in the Austin American-Statesman, the System settled the
lawsuit for $21,000 in April 2011. A member of the System’s board told the Statesman: “The
51-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 51 – Employment Law
11. No. The court held that the public policy exception to employment at will does not prohibit a
firing based on comments made over the firm’s e-mail system, in violation of express
1996).
12. No. USERRA sets four basic conditions for reinstatement eligibility: (1) that the employer
was informed of the deployment in advance of the employee’s departure; (2) that the
cumulative service was for less than five years; (3) that the employee made a timely request
51-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.