© 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website,
in whole or in part.
ANSWER TO CRITICAL THINKING
QUESTION IN THE FEATURE
families, and friends, which means that photographs circulated via social media may have the
effect of encouraging lookism at work. Employers and others enjoy looking at images of
attractive people at parties, on vacations, and having fun. When employers see images of an
employee associating with other attractive people, it may inadvertently cause employers to have
more positive feelings about that worker. That worker may then receive better performance
CASE 11.1—LEGAL REASONING QUESTIONS (PAGE 197)
1A. How did the court treat Dees’s attempt to establish a prima facie case of
employment discrimination? In this case, the lower court assumed, without deciding, that
Dees established a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. At that point, the court determined that United
in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 11: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND DIVERSITY 3
© 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website,
in whole or in part.
CASE 11.2—QUESTIONS (PAGE 204)
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION
Could Morales-Cruz’s dean have had legitimate reasons for changing his mind about the
one-year extension? If so, what might they have been? Under the facts alleged, the dean
possibly had legitimate business reasons for changing his mind about the one-year extension.
For example, he may have concluded that complaining to the chancellor was unprofessional
because it interfered with the university’s tenure-review process. If so, Morales-Cruz’s poor
judgment may have made her a weaker candidate for tenure.
made clear to all workers that such comments are not acceptable and are grounds for dismissal.
Even more, supervisors must be trained about the requirements of Title VII and the other
antidiscrimination statutes that regulate the workplace.
employers. The Gross case was controversial for several reasons, one of which was that it
deprived employers of the “same decision” affirmative defense to claims of age discrimination.
One could argue that this was unfair to employers because it made it more difficult for them to
fire employees for incompetent performance on the job. After all, even if an employer does
make discriminatory-sounding remarks about an employee’s age, does that mean that the
defendants in ADEA cases should also be able to do so. Indeed, several justices on the
Supreme Court objected to the majority’s decision in the Gross case for this reason.
Nonetheless, in the ongoing attempt to balance the rights of employers against the rights of
employees, the Gross case seems to weigh in favor of employees’ rights.
in whole or in part.
in whole or in part.
6 UNIT TWO: AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT
in whole or in part.
about Africa, Novo Films cannot advertise solely for African Americans.
11-2A. Religious discrimination
(Chapter 11—Page 200)
Gomez cannot establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination. The facts show only a
have a stronger case. But without such factors, she cannot satisfy a crucial element of a prima
facie case: a conflict between her religious belief and her employment duties.
11–3A. SPOTLIGHT ON THE TITLE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964—Discrimination based
on gender
11-4A. Discrimination based on gender
(Chapter 11—Page 200)
The reviewing court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Genuine issue of
material fact existed as to whether the director of operations’ alleged requirements that hotel
employer who discriminates against women because, for instance, they do not wear dresses or
makeup, is engaging in gender discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for
the victim’s gender.
in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 11: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND DIVERSITY 3
© 2015 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website,
in whole or in part.
CASE 11.2—QUESTIONS (PAGE 204)
THE ETHICAL DIMENSION
Could Morales-Cruz’s dean have had legitimate reasons for changing his mind about the
one-year extension? If so, what might they have been? Under the facts alleged, the dean
possibly had legitimate business reasons for changing his mind about the one-year extension.
For example, he may have concluded that complaining to the chancellor was unprofessional
because it interfered with the university’s tenure-review process. If so, Morales-Cruz’s poor
judgment may have made her a weaker candidate for tenure.
made clear to all workers that such comments are not acceptable and are grounds for dismissal.
Even more, supervisors must be trained about the requirements of Title VII and the other
antidiscrimination statutes that regulate the workplace.
employers. The Gross case was controversial for several reasons, one of which was that it
deprived employers of the “same decision” affirmative defense to claims of age discrimination.
One could argue that this was unfair to employers because it made it more difficult for them to
fire employees for incompetent performance on the job. After all, even if an employer does
make discriminatory-sounding remarks about an employee’s age, does that mean that the
defendants in ADEA cases should also be able to do so. Indeed, several justices on the
Supreme Court objected to the majority’s decision in the Gross case for this reason.
Nonetheless, in the ongoing attempt to balance the rights of employers against the rights of
employees, the Gross case seems to weigh in favor of employees’ rights.
in whole or in part.
in whole or in part.
6 UNIT TWO: AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT
in whole or in part.
about Africa, Novo Films cannot advertise solely for African Americans.
11-2A. Religious discrimination
(Chapter 11—Page 200)
Gomez cannot establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination. The facts show only a
have a stronger case. But without such factors, she cannot satisfy a crucial element of a prima
facie case: a conflict between her religious belief and her employment duties.
11–3A. SPOTLIGHT ON THE TITLE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964—Discrimination based
on gender
11-4A. Discrimination based on gender
(Chapter 11—Page 200)
The reviewing court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Genuine issue of
material fact existed as to whether the director of operations’ alleged requirements that hotel
employer who discriminates against women because, for instance, they do not wear dresses or
makeup, is engaging in gender discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for
the victim’s gender.