Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
Internet Exercise and Supplements
Answers to Internet Exercise (p. 597)
1. Workplace Bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the
2. Employers react to laws with internal policies. The real value of a law, and the true purpose of the
3. Protected status or discriminatory intent need not be shown to meet the definition of workplace
bullying.
4. Fear of frivolous lawsuits is a primary argument against the Healthy Workplace Bill. For a
Answers
Answers to Practicing Ethics: ‘A “Look” at A&F’ Questions (p. 555)
1.
a. The students can have a discussion based on this question. The same articled continued, “It
is the choice of a business to promote the image it desires, and it is the choice of the
b. Again, from the California Patriot: “If Abercrombie & Fitch does not represent the minority
population, then I want to sue FUBU for not representing the white population. If any
c. It would be wrong only if the store used unhealthy hiring practices. Bass Pro World LLC, a
2.
a. This can be a discussion question. “While [a staff attorney at the Asian Pacific American
13-1
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
b. Students’ answers may vary. Although a company may get into trouble for their illegal hiring
3.
a. Students can have a discussion based on this question. If students have work experience,
b. This can be a discussion question. Students’ answers may vary. It is not applicable for any
c. Students’ answers may vary. Some students might say that it is fair as long as the company
Answers to ‘Stopping Discrimination through Corporate Pledges’ Questions (p.
558)
1. Students’ answers may vary. Engaging in protection against emerging areas of discrimination
2. Yes, the job applicant has recourse to this situation because President Obama, in his 2014 State
Answers to ‘EEOC’s Strategic Plan’ Questions (p. 560)
1. The EEOC decided to focus on “systematic enforcement” as part of its strategic plan (which
includes investigation, litigation, research, federal sector oversight, policy development,
13-2
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
2. If the employer is suspected of a systematic pattern of discrimination without a specific individual
complaint, the EEOC, under Section 707 (e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is
3. For the identification and prevention of unlawful employment practices, the charge process was
Answer to ‘Disparate Treatment’ Questions (p. 561)
1. The students can have a discussion based on this case. Kimberly Ondricko (plaintiff) appealed
against the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the reversal in favor of defendant MGM
2. No, Ondricko cannot bring Title VII discrimination claims if O’Connor had not made the statement
3. Stalter won. The court indicated that, in considering the pretext issue in employment
Answer to ‘Spousal Discrimination?’ Question (p. 566)
1. The students can have a discussion based on this question. The court held, that an employer
Answer to ‘The Four-Fifths Rule and Disparate Impact’ Question (p. 566)
1. Reversing the lower court’s finding of disparate impact discrimination, the appellate court found
13-3
© 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.
Chapter 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
Answer to ‘National Origin’ Question (p. 568)
1. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment granted to the employer and
remanded the claim for further proceedings. The appellate court viewed Adkinson’s comments
regarding Rodriguez’s accent as direct evidence of national origin discrimination.
Answers to ‘Lean In’ Questions (p. 570)
1. Students can have a discussion on this. Sandberg’s observations can be agreed upon. There are
2. The choices women make include family influence over work. Also, they should increase their
sense of development when it comes to career advancement. Client preference based on
3. While the study showed the stated results, Victoria Brescoll, the study’s author, also said that
Answers to ‘What about Hooters?’ Questions (p. 573)
1. Students can have a discussion on this question. Have students consider other jobs and their
2. This can be a discussion question. Although it may be a waste of time and tax dollars for the
Answer to ‘Looks Discrimination’ Questions (p. 574)
1. Both cases deal with appearance at work, and adverse employment actions resulting from female
employees’ appearance. However, in Jespersen, an appearance policy was set forth by the
13-4
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
2. Students can have a discussion based on this question. Ask students to review other laws and
Answers to ‘CEOs on Maternity Leave’ Questions (p. 575)
1. After resuming work from the maternity leave, women still have certain personal factors to take
care of such as breastfeeding, health status, and also work-related factors such as timing,
Answers to ‘Work-Life Balance and Sex Discrimination’ Questions (p. 575)
1. The district court awarded damages including punitive damages and front pay. The Eleventh
2. Students should have a discussion based on this question. Employee morale and higher
Answer to ‘Salary Negotiating Skills’ Question (p. 576)
1. No, because the employer had demonstrated that the pay differential was based on a factor other
than sex.
Answer to ‘The Customer Is Not Always Right’ Question (p. 576)
1. The employer should be held liable for workplace harassment by its customers. The EEOC filed a
suit for sexual harassment violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after it tried to
13-5
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
Answers to ‘Consider the Source: Sexual Harassment at the Casino’ Questions
(p. 581)
1. Students’ answers may vary. The court’s reasoning seems reasonable as it found that the bar
2. Students can have a discussion on this question. Since the court already held that the alleged
Answer to ‘Religious Discrimination’ Questions (p. 590)
1. Wilson had taken a personal vow to wear a graphic anti-abortion button “until there was an end to
abortion.” Both parties agreed that Wilson acted from a sincere religious belief and also that the
button caused a great deal of disruption at work—other employees threatened to walk off the job,
2. Sufficient evidence of a prima facie case of religious discrimination by Thompson was proffered
3. Voss Lighting paid 482,500 to the job candidate against which he was allegedly denied a job
Answers to ‘“Getting to Work” with Reasonable Accommodation’ Questions (p.
592)
1. The appellate court found that a reasonable jury could find that Colwell was an individual with a
2. This can be a discussion question. Shift changes and employee carpooling might be among the
13-6
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
3. The students can discuss this case. Lead students either in a Socratic dialogue or a group
exercise in which they identify and analyze differing facts between the scenario given and Colwell
Answer to ‘ADA’ Questions (p. 593)
1. The Court dismissed Core’s claim after reviewing that there was no reasonable accommodation
from the parties’ declaration. Also, the Sixth Circuit it unreasonable to maintain a fragrance-free
2. Even though Foley claims that Morgan Stanley terminated him immediately after he found out that
Answer to ‘Reverse Age Discrimination’ Question (p. 595)
1. This can be a discussion question for the students. Instructors might ask students if they have
Answers to ‘Age Discrimination’ Questions (p. 595)
1. Considering the supervisor's remarks in the context of all the evidence, the instant court found
2.
a. One argument would be that overqualification could function as a proxy for impermissible
b. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court, holding that there was no violation of the ADA.
The court pointed out that there was no evidence that the overqualification standard had in
13-7
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
rejecting Pugh was objective and non-age-related.”
Cases and Answers
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (p. 563)
Syllabus
Black employees of a power company brought a class action against their employer in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The employees alleged
that the employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring a high school
diploma and a satisfactory intelligence test score for certain jobs that had been limited to white
employees before the passage of Title VII. The plaintiffs alleged that these practices had the
consequence of preserving the effects of the employer’s prior racial discrimination. The district
court dismissed their complaint. The circuit court reversed, holding that residual discrimination
arising from past employment practices was insulated from remedial action, but it affirmed the
district court’s holding that absent a discriminatory purpose, the diploma and test requirements
were proper.
On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed, expressing the unanimous view that Title VII
prohibits an employer from requiring a high school education or passing of a standardized
general intelligence test as a condition of employment or to transfer to jobs when: (1) neither
standard is shown to be significantly related to successful job performance, (2) both
requirements operate to disqualify blacks at a substantially higher rate than white applicants,
and (3) the jobs in question formerly had been filled only by white employees as part of a
longstanding practice of giving preference to whites.
Answers to ‘Griggs v. Duke Power Co.’ Questions (p. 563)
1. According to Chief Justice Burger, the purpose of Title VII “was to achieve equality of employment
2. No. Intent is not relevant in cases under the adverse impact theory.
3. Whether the high school diploma requirement and/or the intelligence tests could be shown to
4. Yes, the state’s social and educational history is responsible for the fact that the percentage of
5. Applying adverse impact analysis to these facts, a California court held that the employer was
6.
a. The case could be challenged under an adverse impact theory. Since the defendant’s motion
13-8
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
7.
a. This can be a discussion question. Whether word-of-mouth recruiting violates title VII should
b. The courts have generally held that word-of-mouth recruiting is not per se violative of Title
c. To answer this question, apply the adverse impact tests discussed in the chapter. Eventually,
Pietras v. Farmingville Fire District, 180 F. 3d 468 (2d Cir. 1999); cert. den. 528
U.S. 948 (1999) (p. 571)
Syllabus
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court decision that Farmingville’s physical agility test
for probationary firefighters had an impermissible disparate impact on women. The pass rate
of women compared to men met the “four-fifths” rule in that the female pass rate was only
57%, while the male pass rate was 95%. Farmingville completely failed to show that the
required 4 minute time to complete the test reflected the needs of the job, rather it was simply
an average of the times it actually took a certain group of firefighters to complete the test, plus
an extra half-minute “to have some leeway.” Further, Pietras presented expert testimony from
an exercise physiologist who concluded that the test was not job related.
Answers to ‘Pietras v. Farmingville Fire District’ Questions (p. 571)
1.
a. Farmingville failed to demonstrate the job-relatedness of its physical agility test. Simply
b. No. Intentional discrimination played no role in the appeal. Several other women passed the
c. Farmingville needed to demonstrate, in a reasonably scientific fashion, the job-relatedness of
13-9
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
its test.
2.
a. Students can have a discussion on this question. It may be fruitful to have students consider
the phrase “so long as they are otherwise well qualified.” Might there not be other
b. The plaintiffs’ evidence regarding the women officers who failed the physical fitness test was
rejected as irrelevant by the district court. But under the standard implicit in Griggs as well as
3.
a. Basically, the World Women’s World raised customer preference, privacy, and cost
arguments.
b. The EEOC initially won a summary judgment, but the district court vacated that ruling and
sent the case back for trial. The World Women’s World then settled with the EEOC agreeing
4. The Court found that Rawlinson had made out a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII
by showing that the height/weight requirements would exclude over 40% of the female population
but only 1% of the male population (an adverse impact argument). In addition, it held that
McCormack v. Safeway 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17805 (D. Ariz. 2014) (p. 578)
Syllabus
Plaintiffs are two women, Mary McCormack and Samantha Stabenchek, who worked as cashiers for a
Safeway store in Scottsdale, Arizona. Jose Lopez, a general clerk at the store, cornered Ms.
Stabenchek, grabbed her buttocks, and kissed her. Plaintiffs allege that the assault was the
culmination of months of sexual harassment in which Lopez made inappropriate comments to
13-10
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
Stabenchek in the workplace and sent her sexually explicit text messages. McCormack reported
ported Lopez’s conduct. Stabenchek participated in Safeway’s internal investigation which led to
Lopez’s termination.
Less than a month after reporting the sexual assault, Plaintiffs were both interviewed about
McCormack’s alleged violation of Safeway’s coupon policy. Safeway alleges that a Safeway security
analyst reported that it appeared as though McCormack was violating the company’s coupon policies.
McCormack was suspended pending further investigation. Feeling that their honesty was impugned,
the Plaintiffs resigned. Stabenchek has asserted [a] sexual harassment ... [claim] against Safeway
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... (“Title VII”). The court ordered that Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment is granted.
Answers to ‘McCormack v. Safeway’ Questions (p.578)
1.
a. Plaintiffs assert that Lopez was Stabenchek’s supervisor under Vance because he was in
charge of the store during some of Stabenchek’s shifts and because he sat in on
b. Lopez and others placed in charge of a store during shifts cannot be considered supervisors
2. Parkins needs to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Parkins wanted to show that she was
harassed by her supervisors and that she suffered a tangible employment action, in which case
3.
a. A situation which might meet the court’s evidentiary requirements for quid pro quo might be
that Craig was demoted or terminated after refusing Byrd’s sexual demands.
b. The employer took reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly the sexual harassment
at issue. It had a procedure in place for filing sexual harassment complaints. The employer
13-11
© 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 13 - Employment Law II: Discrimination
4.
a. The court said the reasonable person standard "tends to be male-biased and tends to
b. Social science evidence indicates that men and women view sexual issues differently with
Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (2009) (p. 586)
Syllabus
New Haven, Conn. uses objective examinations to identify those firefighters best qualified for
promotion. On the examination in question under which no black candidates were eligible for
immediate promotion, the city threw out the results based on that statistical disparity and to avoid
potential liability for discrimination based on a disparate impact against the black candidates. The
white and Hispanic firefighters brought a Title VII claim disparate treatment. The U.S. Supreme Court
held that the city improperly discarded the examination to achieve a more desirable racial distribution
of promotion-eligible candidates, since there was no strong basis in evidence that such an action was
needed to avoid disparate impact. Statistical disparity in itself was insufficient by itself to constitute a
strong basis in evidence of unlawful disparate impact, the extensively analyzed examinations were
job-related and consistent with business necessity, and there was no solid evidence of an equally
valid, less-discriminatory testing alternative.
13-12
© 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.
