Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
B-1
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 35
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
35-1A. Discrimination based on race
The federal district court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The court
35-2A. Disparate-impact discrimination
To establish disparate-impact discrimination, a plaintiff must first identify the challenged
employment practice. Second, the plaintiff must show a disparate impact on a group
characteristic, such as race, that falls under Title VII. Third, the plaintiff must show that the
practice caused the disparate impact. To defend its practice, a defendant may attack the
plaintiff’s case by asserting, for example, that the alleged policy does not exist, that it has no
35-3A. Discrimination based on disability
To establish a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must prove that he or
she (1) has a disability, (2) is “otherwise qualified” for the job, and (3) was excluded from the job
due to discrimination solely on the basis of the disability. An individual is not “otherwise
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 35
35-4A. Religious discrimination
The court found in favor of Tiano, holding, among other things, that she established a prima
facie case of religious discrimination. The court awarded Tiano lost wages for the time she was
unemployed. Dillard’s appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
reversed the judgment of the lower court. The appellate court held that Tiano did not establish a
prima facie case of religious discrimination. “The evidence shows only a bona fide religious
belief that she needed to go to Medjugorje at some time; she failed to prove the temporal
35-5A. Discrimination based on disability
The court granted UPS’s motion for summary judgment, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit affirmed this judgment. Murphy appealed to the United States Supreme Court,
which affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court applied its holding in Sutton v.
United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 219, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999), to conclude that
Murphy was not disabled under the ADA. The Court also concluded that Murphy was not
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 35 B-3
35-6A. Discrimination based on disability
The court ordered PGA to permit Martin to use a cart. PGA appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the order of the lower court. PGA appealed to the
United States Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that a golf cart is
a reasonable accommodation for a disabled athlete. PGA argued that making an exception to its
“walking” rule would “fundamentally alter the sport of golf.” The Supreme Court disagreed,
stating that the “[u]se of a cart is not inconsistent with the fundamental character of the game of
35-7A. Discrimination based on race
The court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the decision of the lower court before rehearing the case,
reversing this ruling, and remanding for the entry of a judgment in the defendants’ favor. The
elements of a prima facie case are: a plaintiff must show (1) that he or she is a member of a
protected group; (2) that he or she was qualified and applied for a position or a promotion for
which an employer was seeking applicants; (3) that despite the plaintiff’s qualifications, he or
she was rejected; and (4) that a person with similar qualifications who was not a member of a
35-8A. Discrimination based on age
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agreed with the employees, and invited
General Dynamics and United Auto Workers (UAW) to settle informally with Cline and the other
employees. When they failed, Cline and the others filed a suit in a federal district court against
General Dynamics. The court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed. General Dynamics appealed to the United States
Supreme Court, which reinstated the dismissal, holding that the Age Discrimination in
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 35
35-9A. Discrimination based on gender
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
front desk workers be pretty and have a Midwestern girl look were because the worker was a
woman. There was also a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the reason offered for
35-10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. A plaintiff alleging discrimination based on a disability under the ADA must
establish (1) that the plaintiff has a disability; (2) that he or she is qualified to perform the
essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) that he or she
was excluded from the job due to the disability. The court held that Chalfant established his
case.
As for the first element, the ADA defines disability in part as “being regarded” as having
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 35 B-5
2. A jury awarded Chalfant $60,000 in back pay and $100,000 in punitive damages.
The court added $18,750 in front pay. Titan appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s awards. The appellate court found “sufficient evidence
to show that Titan acted with malice or reckless indifference in its decision not to hire Chalfant.”
