Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
17. At Whirlpool’s manufacturing plant in Ohio, overhead conveyors transported household
appliance components throughout the plant. A wire mesh screen was positioned below the
conveyors in order to catch falling components and debris. Maintenance employees
frequently had to stand on the screens to clean them. Whirlpool began installing heavier wire
because several employees had fallen partly through the old screens, and one had fallen
completely through to the plant floor. At this time, the company warned workers to walk only
on the frames beneath the wire but not on the wire itself. Before the heavier wire had been
completely installed, a worker fell to his death through the old screen. A short time after this
incident, Deemer and Cornwell, two plant employees, met with the plant safety director to
discuss the mesh, to voice their concerns, and to obtain the name, address, and telephone
number of the local Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) representative.
The next day, the two employees refused to clean a portion of the old screen. They were then
ordered to punch out for the remainder of the shift without pay and received written
reprimands, which were placed in their employment files. Does Whirlpool’s actions against
Deemer and Cornwell constitute discrimination in violation of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act? Explain.
Answer: OSHA. Yes. Judgment for the employees. The U.S. Supreme Court held that when an
employee is ordered by his employer to work under conditions that the employee reasonably
18. John Novosel was employed by Nationwide Insurance Company for fifteen years.
Novosel had been a model employee and, at the time of discharge, was a district claims
manager and a candidate for the position of division claims manager. During Novosel’s
fifteenth year of employment, Nationwide circulated a memorandum requesting the
participation of all employees in an effort to lobby the Pennsylvania state legislature for the
passage of a certain bill before the body. Novosel, who had privately indicated his
disagreement with Nationwide’s political views, refused to lend his support to the lobby, and
his employment with Nationwide was terminated. Novosel brought two separate claims
against Nationwide, arguing, first, that his discharge for refusing to lobby the state legislature
on behalf of Nationwide constituted the tort of wrongful discharge in that it was arbitrary,
malicious, and contrary to public policy. Novosel also contended that Nationwide breached
an implied contract guaranteeing continued employment so long as his job performance was
satisfactory. What decision as to each claim?
Answer: Employment at Will. Decision for Novosel—the allegation of breach of the implied
contract on the part of Nationwide is a question of fact that must be decided by the fact-finder.
19. During the years prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Duke Power openly
discriminated against African-Americans by allowing them to work only in the labor
department of the plant’s five departments. The highest paying job in the labor department
paid less than the lowest paying jobs in the other four “operating” departments in which only
whites were employed. In 1955, the company began requiring a high school education for
initial assignment to any department except labor. However, when Duke Power stopped
restricting African-Americans to the labor department in 1965, it made completion of high
school a prerequisite to transfer from labor to any other department. White employees hired
before the high school education requirement was adopted continued to perform satisfactorily
and to achieve promotions in the “operating” departments.
In 1965, the company also began requiring new employees in the departments other than
labor to register satisfactory scores on two professionally prepared aptitude tests, in addition
to having a high school education. In September 1965, Duke Power began to permit
employees to qualify for transfer to another department from labor by passing either of the
two tests, neither of which was directed or intended to measure the ability to learn to perform
a particular job or category of jobs. Griggs brought suit against Duke Power, claiming that
the high school education and testing requirements were discriminatory and therefore
prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is Griggs correct? Why?
Answer: Civil Rights Act. Yes, judgment for Griggs. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is meant to
achieve equality of employment opportunities and to remove barriers that have operated to
favor white employees over other workers. The act prohibits not only overt discrimination
20. Michelle Vinson was an employee of Meritor Savings Bank for approximately four years.
Beginning as a teller-trainee, she ultimately advanced to the position of assistant branch
manager. Her promotions were based solely upon merit. Sidney Taylor, a vice president of the
bank and manager of the branch office in which Vinson worked, was Vinson’s supervisor
throughout her employment with the bank. After the bank fired Vinson for her abusive use of
sick leave, she brought an action against Taylor and the bank, alleging that during her
employment she had “constantly been subjected to sexual harassment” by Taylor in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At trial, Vinson introduced evidence that Taylor
repeatedly demanded sexual favors from her, fondled her in front of other employees, and
forcibly raped her on a number of occasions. Taylor and the bank categorically denied
Vinson’s allegations. Does the conduct constitute sexual harassment? Explain.
Answer: Sexual Harassment. Judgment for Vinson affirmed. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act prohibits sexual discrimination in the workplace “against any individual with respect to
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” The Court of Appeals
21. Plaintiff, Beth Lyons, a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society (Legal Aid) brought suit
against her employer, alleging that Legal Aid violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide her with a parking space near her
office. Plaintiff worked for defendant in its lower Manhattan office.
Lyon’s disability was the result of being struck and nearly killed by an automobile. For six
years from the date of the accident, Lyons was on disability leave from Legal Aid; she
underwent multiple reconstructive surgeries and received “constant” physical therapy. Since
the accident, Lyons has been able to walk only by using walking devices, including walkers,
canes, and crutches. Since returning to work Lyons has performed her job duties successfully.
Nevertheless, her condition severely limits her ability to walk long distances either at one
time or during the course of a day.
Before returning to work, Lyons asked Legal Aid to accommodate her disability by providing
her a parking space near her office and the courts in which she would practice. She stated
that this would be necessary because she is unable to take public transportation from her
home in New Jersey to the Legal Aid office in Manhattan because such “commuting would
require her to walk distances, climb stairs, and on occasion to remain standing for extended
periods of time,” thereby “overtax[ing] her limited physical capabilities.” Lyons’s physician
advised Legal Aid by letter that such a parking space was “necessary to enable [Lyons] to
return to work.” Legal Aid informed Lyons that it would not pay for a parking space for her.
Accordingly, Lyons has spent $300 to $520 a month, representing 15 percent to 26 percent of
her monthly net salary, for a parking space adjacent to her office building. Are the
accommodations requested by Lyons unreasonable? Why?
Answer: Americans with Disabilities Act. . As defined by the ADA, discrimination includes not
making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an
22. The Steamship Clerks Union has approximately 124 members, 80 of whom are classified
as active. Members serve as steamship clerks who, during the loading and unloading of
vessels in the port of Boston, check cargo against inventory lists provided by shippers and
consignees. The work is not taxing; it requires little in the way of particular skills. On
October 1, the Union formally adopted the membership sponsorship policy (the MSP), which
provided that any applicant for membership in the Union (other than an injured
longshoreman) had to be sponsored by an existing member for his application to be
considered. The record reveals, without contradiction, that (1) the Union had no
African-American or Hispanic members when it adopted the MSP; (2) blacks and Hispanics
constituted from 8 percent to 27 percent of the relevant labor pool in the Boston area; (3) the
Union welcomed at least thirty new members over the next six years and then closed the
membership rolls; (4) all “sponsored” applicants during this period and, hence, all the new
members, were Caucasian; and (5) every recruit was related to (usually the son or brother of)
a Union member.
After conducting an investigation and instituting administrative proceedings, the EEOC
brought suit, alleging that the Union had discriminated against African-Americans and
Hispanics by means of the MSP. Explain whether or not the EEOC will prevail.
Answer: Discrimination/Disparate Treatment. Broadly speaking, Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.
In so doing, the law forbids both "overt discrimination" in the form of disparate treatment, and
23. Johnson Controls’ implemented a policy that women who are pregnant or who are
capable of bearing children would not be placed into jobs involving lead exposure. In April
1984, employees filed a class action lawsuit challenging Johnson Controls’ fetal-protection
policy as sex discrimination that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the
individual plaintiffs were Mary Craig, who had chosen to be sterilized to avoid losing her
job; Elsie Nason, a fifty-year-old divorcee, who had suffered a loss in compensation when she
was transferred out of a job that exposed her to lead; and Donald Penney, who had been
denied a request for a leave of absence for the purpose of lowering his lead level because he
intended to become a father. Discuss whether the plaintiffs have a valid cause of action.
Answer: Discrimination/Disparate Treatment. Yes, judgment for the petitioners. The bias in
Johnson Controls’ policy is obvious. Fertile men, but not fertile women, are given a choice as
ANSWERS TO “TAKING SIDES” PROBLEMS
Mark Hunger was the safety director at Grand Central Sanitation. On September 7, Hunger
“became aware” that hazardous materials consisting of blasting caps were being deposited into
garbage containers at Shu-Deb, Inc. Grand Central collected garbage from these containers and
dumped it at a dump site. Hunger knew that Grand Central was not licensed to dispose of
hazardous materials and believed that it would violate state and/or federal law if the company
transported or disposed of hazardous materials. Hunger also became concerned about the safety
of company employees from the danger of transporting blasting caps. On September 9, Hunger
informed Grand Central’s owner and vice president, Gary Perin, of the information he received
about the blasting caps. On September 12, Hunger, accompanied by Pennsylvania state police
and agents of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, went to search the
contents of Shu-Deb’s containers. However, the garbage had already been collected, so Hunger
and the police located the garbage truck that had collected the garbage and searched it. No
hazardous materials were found in the truck. On October 4, Hunger was terminated because of
the incident. Hunger sued Grand Central for wrongful termination.
(a) What are the arguments that Hunger was wrongfully terminated?
(b) What are the arguments that Hunger was legally terminated?
(c) Will Hunger will prevail? Explain.
ANSWER:
(a) Hunger’s discharge was wrongful due to the public- policy exception to the doctrine of
at-will employment. Hunger was taking action that was to protect the public against
dangers of transporting blasting caps. It is necessary to support individuals who are acting
in good faith to protect the public.
