978-0538468077 Chapter 1 Solution Manual Part 7

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

19. EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

I. OBJECTIVES:

1. To help students understand the application of the Americans with Disabili(es Act

(ADA).

2. To help students understand the interpreta(on of the ADA.

3. To help student understand the meaning of the terms “disability,” “qualified

individual” and “reasonable accommoda(on.”

II. OUT-OF-CLASS PREPARATION TIME: 45 minutes

III. IN-CLASS TIME SUGGESTED: 45 minutes

IV. PROCEDURES:

1. Have all students read the exercise and review the ADA.

2. The class should be divided into groups of four.

3. Each group should read each case incident and answer the following question: (1)

What issue(s) must the court decide in this case? And (2) If you were a member of

the jury, how would you vote? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or

why not?

NOTE: It is a good idea to have students read over the exercise the night before class.

V. ANSWERS FOR EACH INCIDENT:

1. Overweight Hospital AAendant. The case is based on a Federal appellate court case

Cook vs. State of Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retarda(on Hospital,

No. 93-1093 (1st Cir. November 22, 1993). The employer was appealing a district

court jury which awarded Cook $100,000 in compensatory damages and the judge’s

order that Cook be placed in the job position for which she had applied. The plain(f

in this case proceeded under the “perceived disability theory” arguing that although

she was fully able to perform the duties of the job, the employer regarded her as

physically impaired. The EEOC, in a friend of the court brief, argued that morbid

2. This case incident is based on a January, 2004 U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

decision Mason v. Avaya Communications, Inc., 2004 WL 56366 (10th Cir., January

13, 2004). The district court had dismissed Mason’s lawsuit alleging that the

company violated the ADA by failing to accommodate her disability and discharging

her on the basis of her disability. The court of appeals agreed with the district

court’s conclusion that Mason’s request for an accommoda(on to permit her to

3. The Ul(matum. The key issue is whether Joan’s carpal tunnel syndrome is a

disability worthy of an accommoda(on, in this case a six-week leave of absence

recommended by her doctor. With the changes made by congress in the 2008

amendments to the ADA, the employer’s exposure to li(ga(on would be substantial.

With the 2008 amendments, Congress made some important changes to the

section 1630.2(o) Reasonable Accommoda(on

hAp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-22840.htm .

The use of paid or unpaid leave as a reasonable accommoda(on to recuperate from

4. The Fain(ng Technician. Based on ADA case 7led by the EEOC on behalf of the

plain(f (EEOC vs. Potlatch Corp. 1994). Both the employee did not claim to be

disabled under the ADA and the employer’s doctor found nothing wrong with her.

5. The Gun Slinger. Based on case Hindman v. GTE DATA Services, Inc., No.

93-1046-Civ-T-17C, US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Decided

January 20, 1995.

Employee argued that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability.

The court concluded that the employee was discharged for bringing a gun to the

*This teaching note was prepared by Gerald E. Calvasina, Associate Professor, Southern Utah

University.

20. EXERCISE: GROUP DEBATE PROJECT

I. OBJECTIVES

1. To help students understand both sides of controversial human resource

management issues.

2. To allow students to apply human resource management concepts in understanding

the policy implication of the issues.

II. OUT-OF-CLASS PREPARATION TIME: Equivalent to the (me required for students to complete

a major term paper assignment.

III. IN-CLASS TIME SUGGESTED: 45 Minutes

IV. PROCEDURES: See text

V. SUGGESTIONS

This assignment has been used over several semesters and always proves to be one of the

highlights of the term. Here are several suggestion for making it an efec(ve learning tool.

Organizing the Debate

1. It is best to decide at the beginning of the semester which debate topics you want to cover and

to schedule them throughout the semester at appropriate intervals.

2. Since many students will not be familiar with deba(ng techniques, it may be useful to spend

some (me in the beginning of the semester going over basic deba(ng principles. You should

also encourage students to read the suggested sources mentioned in the text. I also tell students

that they should make it a point to see me as they organize their debate.

3. It is important to make the debate assignments early on. The efec(ve group size is four.

Students can be allowed to pick which debate topic and side (nega(ve or aPrma(ve) they want

on a first come, first serve basis. Alternately, I have had teams pick the topics out of hat. While

it is beAer to have an equal number of students on each team, this is not always possible due to

unforeseen events. I have found that students normally accept this if you tell them you will give

consideration to that fact in grading their performance.

4. Normally, it is best that the instructor serve as the chairperson during the debate.

5. Advise students to get organized early in working on their debates. Tell students to do their

research and to write their report first and then work on the oral presentation.

Grading

1. You will need one debate evaluation form for each class member during each of the debates. (A

form is provided here for duplica(on.)

2. The grading formula I have used successfully is to assign 40 points to the debate and 60 points to

the wriAen report. See the grading form used for the wriAen report below.

3. In grading the actual debate, to avoid unnecessary competition and rivalry, the class evaluation

of the debate is used mainly as feedback to the presenters. At the end of the debate, the class

evaluations should be summarized and the means provided to each team (at the next class

period). I also let them know which team won according to the class’s evaluation. During the

debate I 7ll out my own evaluation form and these are the grades the teams receive. However, I

do use the class’s assessment of who won the debate in the final grading.

4. The possible points for winning the debate are 12 points on the debate evaluation form (28

points are allocated to the other 7 items). However, the number of points allocated to a team is

based on the class votes on who won. For example, if 40 votes are cast, 25 for the aPrma(ve

team and 15 for the nega(ve team, then the aPrma(ve team would receive 7.5 points (25/40

(mes 12). The nega(ve team would then receive 4.5 points (15/40 (mes 12). In case of a (e

vote, the points are distributed equally. Or another method is to simply give the team with the

most votes all 12 points. Since the students are not really trained debaters, I am reluctant to use

this system.

Form 1.4

DEBATE EVALUATION FORM

DEBATE TOPIC:____________________________________________________________

Use the following scale to write in a rating on each item below for each team.

1 2 3 4

POOR FAIR GOOD SUPERIOR

AFFIRMATIVE

TEAM

NEGATIVE

TEAM

I. ANALYSIS

(Was the analysis reasonable, complete, and

clear?)

II. REASONING AND EVIDENCE

(Were the arguments structured soundly and based on

research facts and examples? Were arguments logical?)

III. ORGANIZATION

(Was each speech clearly and cogently organized so that

you could follow the structure of the debate?)

IV. REBUTTAL

(Were unsupported points and asser(ons

challenged by the opposing team?)

V. DELIVERY

(Was each speech efec(vely presented? Consider voice

insection, eye contact, and tone.)

VI. QUESTIONS

(Did the team adequately answer audience

question?)

VII. OVERALL TEAM RATING

In my opinion, the beAer deba(ng was done by the______________________________.

(APrma(ve or nega(ve team)

Comments for APrma(ve Team:

Comments for Nega(ve Team:

21. INCIDENT: GIVING UP SENIORITY TO ACCOMMODATE A DISABLED COLLEAGUE

I. OBJECTIVES

The major objective of this incident is to give students an opportunity to further explore the

application of reasonable accommoda(on of an employee with a disability. What makes this case

interesting is whether a bona 7de seniority system takes precedent over the legal requirement that

companies must provide reasonable accommoda(on to employees with disabili(es.

II. ANSWERS TO INCIDENT QUESTIONS

1. If you were Beckwith, would you have dropped your transfer request to help Mar(n?

The intent of this ques(on is not the legality of the issues involved but to explore the ethics of

situation. It is interesting to discuss with students their views on whether an employee like Beckwith

2. Should Fisher have given Mar(n preference over Beckwith because of his disability? Does

seniority override the “reasonable accommoda(on” requirement as specified in the Americans

with Disabili(es Act?

Fisher’s decision is correct according to the legal requirements of the American with Disabili(es

Act. The EEOC issued Enforcement Guidelines on March 3, 1999 concerning an employer’s obligation to

provide reasonable accommoda(on to qualified applicants and employees with a disability. The ADA

generally requires that employers ofer reassignment as a reasonable accommoda(on even if it does not

allow any of the other employees to transfer from one position to another. However, the present case is

based on US Airways vs. BarneA. The Supreme Court ruled that preferring a disabled employee to a

more senior employee in an assignment request was not reasonable “in the run of cases” absent a

showing of special circumstances to jus(fy such a preference. In other words, generally it will be

The instructor should point out to the students that the court ruling does not change the basic

operation of the reasonable accommoda(on standard. At the outset, an employee carries the burden of

proving an accommoda(on is “reasonable.” An employee can do this by showing the accommoda(on is

“reasonable on its face” or, assuming it is not, that there are special circumstances that make the

The EEOC has provided some guidelines on what may cons(tute an undue hardship for

employers:

The accommoda(on requires the employer to modify the work hours of an employee with a

The EEOC guidelines also suggest that an employer cannot use a cost-bene7t analysis to

See the EEOC Web Site for EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommoda(on and

22. INCIDENT: “BEAUTYISM” IN THE WORKPLACE

I. OVERVIEW:

Students should be aware that selection decisions are not always objective and that physical

appearance can sometimes determine which applicant is selected for given position. In this incident, an

academic department hired an administra(ve assistant who did not appear to meet the criteria the

search commiAee established prior to conducting interviews.

II. OBJECTIVES:

The first objective is to sensi(ze students to the role that appearance may play if a selection

commiAee is unclear about the selection criteria. A second objective is to illustrate how one person with

a particular bias may cause a commiAee to override previously determined criteria. The third objective

is to help students consider ways to make employee selection decisions more objective.

III. DISCUSSION:

In this particular case, the department chair had extra weight in the selection decision since the

new administra(ve assistant would be working for him. However, his personal situation coupled with

the physical aArac(veness of one applicant may have biased the selection decision.

IV. ANSWERS TO INCIDENT QUESTIONS:

1. What is “beautyism”?

2. To what degree was “beautyism” a factor in this decision? How do you know?

3. Why and to what degree do more aArac(ve male and female job applicants have an

advantage in the interview process?

Interviewers may tend to generalize high scores on physical appearance to other aAributes

4. What can managers do to eliminate the “beautyism” bias during the job interview?

For certain positions (i.e., modeling), such a bias may be job related and should not be

eliminated. For most jobs, however, this bias is undesirable because it is not job related. While it may

5. If “beautyism” is frequently used as an informal selection criterion for new

employees, what strategies do you suggest to address this issue?

Typically, more than one person is involved in a selection decision, although the input of some

counts more than the input of others. Since many of those interviewing applicants are unaware of their

More specifically, those involved in the selection process should agree in advance concerning the

major selection criteria and their rela(ve weights. They should then practice interviewing potential

applicants as part of the training process. Such training should be repeated periodically and make

23. INCIDENT: SEXUAL ORIENTATION INCIDENTS: BOOTSTRAPPING DISCRIMINATION

I. OVERVIEW:

These three incidents are based on real cases that were eventually decided through the court

system. Sexual orientation remains a conten(ous issue in the workplace but Title VII’s prohibi(on of

discrimination based on gender does not extend to discrimination against sexual orientation (e.g.

homosexuals or lesbians). The incidents are u(lised to help students understand the complex issue of

discrimination and sexual orientation.

II. OBJECTIVES:

1. To introduce students to the de7ni(on of gender discrimination under Title VII.

2. To illustrate how the courts evaluate sexual orientation cases.

III. DISCUSSION:

These three case incidents are u(lised to help students understand the complex issue of

discrimination and sexual orientation. The three incidents illustrate diferent aspects of the courts’

interpreta(on of Title VII and past cases.

First, the students should be made aware that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not prohibit

discrimination due to sexual orientation. The “sex” referred to in the Title clearly refers to membership

in a class delineated by gender not sexual orientation. Despite a number of eforts to get sexual

orientation added to the statute, such aAempts have been unsuccessful and Congress has constantly

rejected any bills with the goal of including it within Title VII discrimination prohibi(on. Nevertheless,

some states and local governments have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual

orientation. Indiana and Pennsylvania prohibit against public employees based on sexual orientation

and gender identity. In addition, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Michigan and Montana

have an executive order, administra(ve order or personnel regula(on prohibi(ng discrimination against

public employees based on sexual orientation. Seventeen states—California, Connec(cut, Hawaii,

Illinois, Maine, Maryland, MassachuseAs, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,

New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia prohibit

sexual orientation discrimination in the public and private sectors. At least 2,546 private employers—

including Ford, MicrosoN and AT&T—have policies prohibi(ng discrimination based on sexual

orientation, according to the organization.

Second, while Title VII and no other federal laws cover sexual orientation discrimination, there

have been court cases to indicate that Title VII does protect persons subject to adverse employment

ac(on because of gender-specific stereotypes, nonconformity with appearance standards. Neither Title

VII, nor any other federal law, expressly prohibits job discrimination against homosexuals, and, prior to

Price Waterhouse, numerous courts had held that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination does not protect

gay and lesbian employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. But since Price

Waterhouse, a number of gay and lesbian employees have brought suit grounded in gender-stereotyping

theory. In the Price Waterhouse case, the plain(f successfully argued that she was not promoted to a

partner because of sex role stereotyping. The plain(f, Hopkins alleged she was told by her male

partners to act in a more feminine manner including wearing makeup and jewellery. Hopkins was

described as too aggressive and masculine. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court which found

Price Waterhouse violated Title VII by relying on sex stereotypes in declining to propose Hopkins for

partnership.

Since Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins, a number of gay and lesbian employees have brought suit grounded

in gender-stereotyping theory. The success of such cases appear to rest on the specific facts of each case

as well as on whether the plain(f has specifically alleged a gender stereotyping claim distinct from a

sexual orientation claim. The laAer is very important.

IV. ANSWERS TO INCIDENT QUESTIONS:

The first two question are answered in the summary of each of the three incidents presented below.

The third ques(on is handled separately.

1. The Smith case incident is based on Simonton vs. Runyon. The United States District Court for the

Eastern District of New York dismissed Simonton’s complaint for failure to state a claim, reasoning that

Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The decision was upheld by the

appeals court which argued: “There can be no doubt that the conduct allegedly engaged in by

Simonton’s co-workers is morally reprehensible whenever and in whatever context it occurs, particularly

in the modern workplace. Nevertheless, as the First Circuit recently explained in a similar context, “we

2. This case is based on Sanchez v Azteca Restaurant. The case took place in the state of Washington. In

a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favour of Azteca Restaurants. However, upon appeal

to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Sanchez won the case. The Appeals court found

that the behaviour of Sanchez’s co-workers and supervisor violated Title VII and the Washington Law

Against discrimination. The court stated that it is now clear that sexual harassment in the form of a

hos(le work environment cons(tutes sex discrimination as established in Meritor Savings Bank and

Vinson cases. The courts have laid out preAy clear guidelines for defining a “hos(le environment and the

district court relied on these guidelines (e.g. Harris v. ForkliN Sys. Inc. 1993). To win the case Sanchez

had to prove a number of factors. First, to prevail in his hos(le environment claim, Sanchez was required

to establish a paAern of ongoing and persistent harassment severe enough to alter the condition of

3. Students may believe that this case is similar to the second one but the circumstances are quite

diferent and illustrate how the courts draw a 7ne line when it comes to sexual orientation and charges

of sex discrimination. They hold to the tenet that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not

protected under Title VII. This case is based on Dawson vs. Bumble & Bumble. In the 2005 case, the 2nd

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the totality of the evidence did not support a claim that Dawson, a

lesbian, had been subjected to an adverse employment ac(on based on her gender non-conforming

appearance. First, they held Dawson could not assert a claim for discrimination based on sexual

4. Sexual orientation in the workplace is an increasingly important HR issue. How should

companies manage the issues?

A number of organizations address sexual orientation through their managing diversity initiatives.

For example, eforts are made to establish aPnity and network groups for gay, lesbian, bisexual and

Creed W. E. (2006). Seven conversation about the same thing: Homophobia and heterosexism