Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
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
