ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS
1. Gooddecade manufactures and sells automobile parts throughout the eastern part of the
United States. Among its full-time employees are 220 fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds.
These teenagers are employed throughout the company and are paid at an hourly wage
rate of $3 per hour. Discuss the legality of this arrangement.
2. Janet, a twenty-year-old woman, applied for a position driving a truck for Federal
Trucking, Inc. Janet, who is 5’4” tall and weighs 135 pounds, was denied the job
because the company requires that all employees be at least 5’6” tall and weigh at least
150 pounds. Federal justifies this requirement on the basis that its drivers are frequently
forced to move heavy loads in making pickups and deliveries. Janet brings a cause of
action. Has Federal Trucking violated the Civil Rights Act? Explain.
Answer: Civil Rights Act of 1964: Discrimination. Yes. Janet would prevail under the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Height and weight tests are questionable on their face in that
they disproportionately act across gender and hence the courts have placed upon
3. N.I.S. promoted John, a forty-two-year-old employee, to a supervisor’s position while
passing over James, a fifty-eight-year-old employee. N.I.S. told James he was too old for
the job and that it preferred a younger man. Discuss whether James will succeed if he
brings a cause of action.
Answer: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. James would succeed. The Age
Discrimination in Employment Act protects individuals between the ages of forty and
4. Anthony was employed as a forklift operator for Blackburn Construction Company.
While on the job, he operated the forklift in a manner that was careless and in direct
violation of Blackburn’s procedural manual and, as a result, caused himself severe injury.
Blackburn denies liability based on Anthony’s (a) gross negligence, (b) disobedience of
the procedural manual, and (c) written waiver of liability. Can Anthony recover for his
injury? Explain.
Answer: Worker’s Compensation. Under Worker’s Compensation laws an employee who is
injured on the job is entitled to compensation regardless of fault. The amounts
5. Hazelwood School District is located in Sleepy Hollow Township. It is being sued by
several teachers who applied for teaching positions with the school but were rejected.
The plaintiffs, who are all African-Americans, produce the following evidence:
(a) 1.8 percent of the Hazelwood School District’s certified teachers are
African-American, whereas 15.4 percent of the certified teachers in Sleepy Hollow
Township are African-American; and
(b) the hiring decisions by Hazelwood School District are based solely on subjective
criteria. Will the plaintiffs prevail? Explain.
Answer: Civil Rights Act of 1964/National Labor Relations Act. In the case of Hazelwood
School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 97 S. Ct 2736, 53 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1977) the
Supreme Court held that proof that 1.8% of a particular school district’s teachers were
6. T. W. E., a large manufacturer, prohibited its employees from distributing union leaflets to
other employees while on the company’s property. Richard, an employee of T. W. E.,
disregarded the prohibition and passed out the leaflets before his work shift began. T. W.
E. discharged Richard for his actions. Has T. W. E. committed an unfair labor practice?
Answer: National Labor Relations Act: Unfair Labor Practice. . The National Labor
Relations Act provides the right to self-organize and declares certain conduct by an
7. Erwick was dismissed from her job at the C & T Steel Company because she was “an
unsatisfactory employee.” At the time, Erwick was active in an effort to organize a union
at C & T. Is the dismissal valid?
8. Johnson, president of the First National Bank of A, believes that it is appropriate to
employ only female tellers. Hence, First National refuses to employ Ken Baker as a teller
but does offer him a maintenance position at the same salary. Baker brings a cause of
action against First National Bank. Is First National illegally discriminating based on
gender? Why?
Answer: Title III, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes, this is discrimination; decision for Baker.
First National’s hiring criteria based on gender is violative of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Title VII of the Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color,
religion, or national origin in the hiring, firing, compensating, or otherwise treating
9. Section 103 of the Federal Public Works Employment Act establishes the Minority
Business Enterprise (MBE) program and requires that, absent a waiver by the Secretary
of Commerce, 10 percent of all federal grants given by the Economic Development
Administration be used to purchase services or supplies from businesses owned and
controlled by U.S. citizens belonging to one of six minority groups: African-American,
Spanish-speaking, Asian, Native American, Eskimo, and Aleut. White owners of
businesses contend the act constitutes illegal reverse discrimination. Discuss.
Answer: Employment Discrimination Law. The Act is Constitutional since Congress relied
on its right to provide for the general welfare. Also, it could be argued that Congress had
10. Worth H. Percivil, a mechanical engineer, was employed by General Motors (GM)
for twenty-six years until he was discharged. At the time his employment was terminated,
Percivil was head of GM’s Mechanical Development Department. Percivil sued GM for
wrongful discharge. He contends that he was discharged as a result of a conspiracy
among his fellow executives to force him out of his employment because of his age,
because he had legitimately complained about certain deceptive practices of GM,
because he had refused to give the government false information although urged to do so
by his superiors, and because he had, on the contrary, undertaken to correct certain
alleged misrepresentations made to the government. General Motors claims that
Percivil’s employment was terminable at the will of GM for any reason and with or
without cause, provided that the discharge was not prohibited by statute. Has Percivil
been wrongly discharged? Why?
Answer: Employee Termination at Will. Judgment for General Motors. In the 1975 case
which serves as the basis for this problem, Percival v. General Motors, 400 F. Supp.
1322, the court held that Percival’s “discharge did not involve a breach of public policy
11.Samsoc brought an action against the Sailors’ Union alleging that the Union had induced
and encouraged employees of Moore Dry Dock Company to engage in a strike or
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for Moore in
connection with the conversion into a bulk gypsum carrier of the SS Phopho, a vessel
owned by Samsoc, the object being to force Moore to cease doing business with Samsoc
and thus force Samsoc to resolve its dispute with the respondent. Has an unfair labor
practice been committed? Explain.
Answer: Unfair Labor Practices/Secondary Activities. The activity of the union is in
violation of Section 8(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act. A secondary activity
12. The defendant, Berger Transfer and Storage, operated a national moving and
transfer business employing approximately forty persons. In May and June, Local 705 of
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters spoke with a number of Berger employees,
obtaining twenty-eight cards signed in support of the union. The management of Berger,
unwilling to work with the union, attempted to prevent it from representing Berger
employees. The company first assigned all work to those with high seniority, in effect
temporarily laying off low-seniority employees. The management then threatened to lay
off permanently those with low seniority and threatened all employees with a total
closedown of the plant. The management interrogated several employees about their
union involvement and attempted to extract information about other employees’
activities. When the union presented the company with the signed cards and recognition
agreement, Berger refused to acknowledge the union’s existence or its right to bargain on
behalf of the employees. The union then called a strike, with employees picketing the
Berger warehouse. During the picketing, the company threatened to terminate the
picketers if they did not return to work. Later, one manager on two occasions recklessly
drove a truck through the picket line, striking employees. Finally, the company contacted
several of the employees and offered them the “grievance procedures and job security”
the union would provide. The employees refused the offer. On June 15, the strike ended,
with most of the picketers returning to work. Local 705 filed a complaint with the
National Labor Relations Board, alleging that Berger had committed unfair labor
practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Will Local 705 succeed?
Explain.
Answer: N.L.R.B. N.L.R.B. order in favor of the union affirmed. The NLRB concluded
that Berger had violated sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. The board’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Berger committed eighteen 8(a)(1)
13. City of Richmond, Virginia (the City) adopted a Minority Business Utilization Plan
requiring prime contractors awarded city construction contracts to subcontract at least
30 percent of the dollar amount of each contract to one or more Minority Business
Enterprises (MBEs). The plan defined an MBE to include a business from anywhere in
the United States that is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by African-American,
Spanish-speaking, Asian, Native American, Eskimo, or Aleut citizens. Although the plan
declared that it was “remedial” in nature, it was adopted after a public hearing at which
no direct evidence was presented that the City had discriminated on the basis of race in
letting contracts or that its prime contractors had discriminated against minority
subcontractors. The evidence introduced in support of the plan included a statistical
study indicating that, although the City’s population was 50 percent African-American,
less than 1 percent of its prime construction contracts had been awarded to minority
businesses in recent years. Additional evidence showed that a variety of local
contractors’ trade associations had virtually no MBE members. J. A. Croson Co., the sole
bidder on a city contract, was denied a waiver and lost its contract because of the plan.
Discuss the legality of the plan.
Answer: Affirmative Action. The Court affirmed in favor of Crosen. The Court noted that
the distinction made in levels of review of affirmative action programs in the Fullilove
and Wygandt opinions was proper. Under Fullilove, Federal affirmative action programs
are not subject to a “strict scrutiny” review since Congress was acting pursuant to its
14. Burdine, a woman, was hired by the Texas Department of Community Affairs as a
clerk in the Public Service Careers (PSC) Division. The PSC provides training and
employment opportunities for unskilled workers. At the time she was hired, Burdine
already had several years’ experience in employment training. She was soon promoted,
and later, when her supervisor resigned, she performed additional duties that usually had
been assigned to the supervisor. Burdine applied for the position of supervisor, but the
position remained unfilled for six months, until a male employee from another division
was brought in to fill it. Burdine alleges discrimination violating Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act. The defendant, Texas Department of Community Affairs, responds that
nondiscriminatory evaluation criteria were used to choose the new supervisor. In order to
comply with Title VII, must the Texas Department of Community Affairs hire Burdine as
supervisor if she and the male candidate are equally qualified? Explain.
Answer: Civil Rights Act of 1964. No, the Texas Dept. of Community Affairs is not
required to hire Burdine. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of
15. Wise was fired from her job at the Mead Corporation after she was involved in a
fight with a co-worker. On four other unrelated occasions, fights had occurred between
male co-workers. Only one of the males was fired, but this was after his second fight, in
which he seriously injured another employee. There is no dispute that Wise was qualified
and performed her duties adequately. Wise successfully established a prima facie case of
discrimination. However, the defendant, Mead Corporation, met its burden to “articulate
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons” for firing Wise. Can she prevail? Explain.
Answer: Discrimination/Disparate Treatment. Wise may still win this case. Plaintiff
must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing 1) she is a member of
16. The United Steelworkers of America and Kaiser Aluminum entered into a master
collective bargaining agreement covering terms and conditions of employment at fifteen
Kaiser plants. The agreement contained an affirmative action plan designed to eliminate
conspicuous racial imbalances in Kaiser’s then almost exclusively white craftwork
forces. African-American craft-hiring goals were set for each Kaiser plant equal to the
percentage of African-Americans in the respective local labor forces. To meet these
goals, on-the-job training programs were established to teach unskilled production
workers—African-Americans and whites—the skills necessary to become craftworkers.
The plan reserved for African-American employees 50 percent of the openings in these
newly created in-plant training programs.
Pursuant to the national agreement, Kaiser altered its craft-hiring practice in its
Gramercy, Louisiana, plant by establishing a program to train its production workers to
fill craft openings. Selection of craft trainees was made on the basis of seniority. At least
50 percent of the new trainees were to be African-American until the percentage of
African-American skilled craftworkers in the Gramercy plant approximated the
percentage of African-Americans in the local labor force. During this affirmative action
plan’s first year of operation, thirteen craft trainees (seven African-American, six white)
were selected from Gramercy’s production workforce. The most senior African-American
selected had less seniority than several white production workers who were denied
admission to the program. Does the affirmative action plan wrongfully discriminate
against white employees and therefore violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Justify your
decision.
Answer: Civil Rights Act of 1964. No, the plan did not wrongfully discriminate against
white employees; judgment for United Steelworkers of America. The Civil Rights Act of
1964 was primarily intended to open employment opportunities to African-Americans in