17. EXERCISE: IS THIS UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION?
I. OBJECTIVES:
1. To help students understand the application of the four major federal laws which
regulate equal rights in employment. These laws are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 as amended by EEO Act of 1972, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Equal Pay Act of
1963, Age discrimination Act of 1967, the Voca)onal Rehabilita)on Act of 1973 and
the American with Disabili)es Act of 1990.
2. To help students understand the court’s interpreta)on of these laws.
3. To help students understand the legal de<ni)on of discrimination and the burden of
proof placed on defendants and plain)=s.
II. OUT-OF-CLASS PREPARATION TIME: 60 minutes.
III. IN-CLASS TIME SUGGESTED: 45 minutes.
IV. PROCEDURES:
1. All students should read the exercise and review the major laws before class.
2. The class should be divided into groups of 4.
3. Each group should read each of the incidents that follow and answer these
question:
What legal statute(s) apply in this case?
What issue(s) must the court decide in this case?
If you were the judge, how would you rule?
Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or Why not?
NOTE: It is a good idea to ask students to read over the exercise prior to class. If )me is a constraint, the
instructor may want to eliminate some of the scenarios. The case scenarios included were chosen to
illustrate important concepts in understanding equal employment laws (e.g. adverse impact, BFOQ,
burden of proof). The scenarios are based on actual court cases.
V. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR EACH CASE:
1. Title VII of the CRA of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.
The court must decide if Mobley is a victim of religious harassment.
The jury ruled that Mobley had been a victim of religious harassment and she was
2. Title VII of Civil Rights Act (1964; Civil Rights Act 1991) prohibi)ng discrimination on the
basis of race.
The major issue is whether or not the employer is guilty of inten)onal employment
discrimination (disparate treatment) by treating a black applicant different from white
applicants. For a prima facie case to be established, Roberts must show four things (see
McDonnell Douglas Corp. vs. Green, 1972): (1) that he belongs to a group protected
3. Title VII of the CRA of 1964 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
The major issue before the court is whether or not Jones was denied a partnership
because of her gender. A key part of answering this issue is understanding the
This case is based on the Supreme Court Case of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins, No.
87-1167 decided on May 1, 1989. Hopkins, a female CPA, sued her company in Federal
District under Title VII of the CRA of 1964 charging that it had discriminated against her
on the basis of sex in its partnership decisions. The District Court ruled in her favor on
the ques)on of liability, holding that the employer who has allowed a discriminatory
4. In this case Title VII does not apply since the courts have uniformly held that Title VII’s
ban on sex discrimination does not encompass discrimination against transsexuals (it
also does not address sexual preferences). It is generally recognized that congressional
5. Title VII of the CRA of 1964.
The major issue is whether racially oriented name-calling is a form of racial harassment
and cons)tutes discrimination on account of race in viola)on of Title VII of the CRA.
The ruling was in favor of the plain)=. This incident is based on Holland vs. First Virginia
Bank. The U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia found both the supervisor’s behavior
6. Title VII of the CRA of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
The major issue is whether in making the promotion the county permissibly took into
account the sex of the applicants in viola)on of Title VII. Related to this is the legality of
the county’s aNrma)ve action plan. That is, did a voluntary aNrma)ve action plan
This is based on the Supreme Court case: Johnson vs. transportation Agency, Santa Clara
County, California, et al., No. 85-1129, March 26, 1987. The court found for the County
and ruled that employers who had not necessarily discriminated against women and
minori)es can still give preference to integrate on the basis of sex and race. The court
relied upon its conclusions in Steelworkers vs. Weber and argued that an employer
seeking to jus)fy adop)on of an aNrma)ve action plan need not point to its own prior
7. Title VII.
Can the school district treat being male as a bona <de occupa)onal quali<ca)on for
being employed as a principal in a secondary or middle school?
The court ruled in favor of the plain)=. (See Williams vs. Ho=meister 27 FEP Cases 782
8. Rehabilita)on Act of 1973, section 504 states “no otherwise quali<ed person shall, solely
by reason of his/her handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the
bene<ts or, be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
federal <nancial assistance.” The American with Disabili)es Act is also relevant. It
states, “An individual with a disability who meets the skill, experience, education, and
other job-related requirements of a position held or desired, and who, with or without
reasonable accommoda)on, can perform the essential function of a job.”
The major issue is whether or not Poole’s employer violated the Act because it removed
him from his classroom duties to an administra)ve, non-classroom position. Can the
employer show that there is substantial risk of future injury or a reasonable basis for its
assessment of the risk or injury to the employee himself, his students, his co-workers, or
9. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act.
Is Laruen Hill’s discrimination complaint )me barred because the discriminatory
decisions relating to pay had been made more than 180 days prior to the date she <lled
This case is based on LedbeTer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. A US Supreme
Court ruling in 2007 held that the statue of limitation for presen)ng an equal-pay
lawsuit begins at the date the pway was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent
10. Age discrimination Act.
This is an unusual case for age discrimination law since most cases revolve around
dismissal or demo)on. However, the major ques)on is whether or not she was a victim
of age harassment in viola)on of the Age discrimination Act
11. Title VII of Civil Rights Act (also executive Order 11246).
Can employees most recently hired be subject to layo= if this action will compromise the
aNrma)ve action effort established?
Based on Fire<ghters Local Union No. 1784 vs. StoTs 1984, Supreme Court upheld a
12. American with Disabili)es Act of 1990.
The court must decide whether the company discriminated against a clinically depressed
This case scenario is based on August vs. ONce Unlimited Inc. Although this case was
heard under MassachuseTs state disability discrimination law it has major implication
for understanding the application of the ADA. The court held that the evidence
demonstrated that the plain)= could not perform his job and therefore no viola)on of
the state act had occurred. The state disability discrimination law like the ADA only
13. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibi)ng discrimination on the basis of national
origin.
Does the denial of the promotion to Lee because of her accent violate Title VII’s ban on
national origin discrimination?
Perhaps most central to one’s national origin is the use of language in the workplace. An
employment decision based on foreign accent does not violate Title VII if an individual’s
accent materially interferes with the ability to perform job duties. This assessment
depends upon the speci<c duties of the position in ques)on and the extent to which the
individual’s accent affect his or her ability to perform job duties. The EEOC requires
This case is based on Cambodian American Planna K. Xieng who <led a discrimination
claim alleging that the bank he worked for overlooked him for a promotion because of
his accent. The bank felt that he did not have suNcient English skills to calm irate
customers. The court awarded Xieng $389,000 in damages. In another relevant case, a
14. There are no federal statutes prohibi)ng weight discrimination in the workplace. Weight
is not iden)<ed as a protected characteristic. The di=eren)al application of weight
standards to members of protected classes may be covered by Title VII if they cons)tute
disparate treatment (e.g. applying a weight standard to women but not men). Being
overweight, in and of itself, generally is not an impairment under the American with
Can weight be a legitimate reason for denying an applicant a job? Slendercise argues
that it sells <tness and Reynolds’s weight would damage the image the company wants
This incident is based on Jennifer Portnick vs. Jazzercise. At the )me of publication of
this manual, Jazzercise had entered into media)on with Portnick. The case has drawn a
15. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibi)ng discrimination based on religion.
The court must decide if Mohammed is a victim of religious harassment.
This case is based on a EEOC lawsuit <led in federal court on behalf of
Pakistani-American employees at Stockton Steel Company, a subsidiary of Herrick
corporation. The company was ordered to pay $1.1 million to four former employees.
Stockton Steel was obligated under the requirements of Title VII to protect employees
accommodate the workers’ need to have a private place to pray especially since other
employees harassed them. Otherwise, Stockton had to demonstrate that
accommoda)on would have created undue hardship on the company (which they were
not able to do). Religion and national origin discrimination are two of the fastest
NOTE: All of these cases are based on actual court rulings. The exercise gives a good historical review of
how the law has evolved. It should be pointed out to students that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 made it
much more diNcult for employees to prove discrimination. The new act came about because of the
Supreme Court rulings in Wards Cove and Price Waterhouse had the effect of limi)ng the protection of
women and minori)es under equal employment laws. The 1991 Act was to reverse several U S Supreme
18. EXERCISE: WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
I. OBJECTIVES:
1. To familiarize students with the EEOC sexual harassment guidelines.
2. To teach students the meaning of these guidelines as they relate to the workplace.
3. To teach students the manager’s and organiza)on’s role in preven)ng sexual
harassment.
4. To show students the complexi)es involved in identifying sexual harassment in the
workplace and in interpre)ng EEOC guidelines.
II. OUT-OF CLASS PREPARATION TIME: 20 minutes to read the EEOC guidelines and complete the
sexual harassment ques)onnaire.
III. IN-CLASS TIME SUGGESTED: 45 minutes for group and class discussion of all items on
the sexual harassment ques)onnaire.
IV. PROCEDURES: See Text
V. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS:
Prior to discussing the answers to the question on the Sexual Harassment Ques)onnaire, we
<nd it helpful to review the EEOC Guidelines with the class and to provide some additional legal
information. Our discussion usually includes the following: The EEOC has provided three explicit criteria
The <rst two of these are relatively clear. However, when the complaint revolves around a
charge of hos)le working environment, even the Supreme Court decision in the Vinson case leaves room
for interpreta)on. A hos)le environment is generally considered to exist when the harassment is
suNciently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work
situa)on. Occasional, isolated, trivial remarks or behaviors are insuNcient to satisfy the requirement of
pervasiveness. For example, in Jones vs. Flagship international, the sexual advances by one of the
employer’s vice presidents and the sculp)ng of bare-breasted mermaids by the employer’s executive
chef as table decora)ons for an oNce Christmas party were held by the FiHh Circuit Court to be
insuNciently pervasive to cons)tute a hos)le work environment (BNA, 1988). Similarly in VermeT vs.
AHer reviewing the above information with the students, we then discuss the answers to each of
the question. The situation described in question 5, 7, and 11 all appear to cons)tute sexual
harassment in that submission to, or rejec)on of, a request is used as a basis for employment decisions.
Ques)on 14 also appears to cons)tute harassment because gran)ng sexual favors is required as a term
The answers to the remaining question are not so clear. Indeed, they are highly debatable,
although not equally so. In fact, we have found that students disagree signi<cantly on these items.
These question all center around the issue of whether the situa)on presented creates an in)mida)ng,