Chapter 17
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR LAW
1
Suggested Additional Assignments
Moot Court: Discharges that Violate Public Policy
Assign two teams of two students each to represent Novosel and Nationwide Insurance in the You Be the
Judge Writing Problem in the chapter-ending practice questions (#10). Have them prepare their
Research: Airline Unions
Students should find as much information as possible about an airline that recently filed for bankruptcy,
Research: Current Strike
Students should find as much information as possible about a current strike, anywhere in the United
States. In addition to news articles, students should try to locate position statements by the two sides. In
Drafting Exercise: Advising Management
Students are to assume that they are employee relations supervisors at Parton Parcel, a nationwide parcel
delivery company. Presently none of Parton Parcel’s employees belongs to a union. However, a national
union is attempting to organize the drivers, package sorters, and desk clerks. Parton Parcel’s bosses are
adamantly opposed to all unions. They want to do everything possible to defeat this union drive,
including, if necessary:
• Speaking to individual workers, to let them know what management regards as the dangers of
unionization, including economic harm to the company, and possible layoffs.
Ethics: Creating a Part-Time Labor Force
Divide the class into an even number of groups, half of which will represent management and the other
half, labor. Using the Parton Parcel example above, debate the ethics of the last proposal, to lay off all
desk clerks and subcontract the work to a part-time labor force. Assume that doing this would save the
company large sums of money. Parton Parcel currently pays desk clerks from $8 to $12 per hour for a
2 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
Research: Working Conditions
Students should research and prepare a brief report on a dispute describing unsafe working conditions at
Chapter Overview
Chapter Theme
Employment law is an important—and difficult—area of law to study. It is important because it affects
almost everyone, directly or indirectly. It is difficult because it is changing rapidly. Even now,
Quotes of the Day
“Without the power of the industrial union behind it, democracy can only enter the state as the victim
enters the gullet of the serpent.” –James Connolly (1870-1916), Irish labor leader. “
Employment Security
Family and Medical Leave Act
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees both men and women up to 12 weeks of unpaid
Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law 3
Case: Peterson v. Exide Technologies.
1
Facts: Exide Technologies issued repeated warnings to Robert Peterson for driving forklifts too fast and
violating other safety rules. After he was injured in a forklift crash, Exide granted him FMLA leave for
10 days while he recovered.
Peterson’s manager fired him during the leave period for “flagrant violations of safety rules”…
Peterson sued, claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his right to take FMLA leave.
The lower court granted summary judgment to Exide, and Peterson appealed.
Issue: Was Peterson fired in retaliation for claiming FMLA leave?
Excerpts from Judge Baldock’s Decision: The FMLA makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere
explanations are pretextual.
Defendant asserts it dismissed Plaintiff for the legitimate reason that he violated company safety policies.
According to Defendant’s Plant Manager:
Based on my own review of the photographs and the damage they depicted,
Plaintiff was driving too fast at the time of the crash and was not operating his
The Plant Manager also based his decision to fire Plaintiff on the “history of careless and unsafe conduct”
reflected in Plaintiff’s personnel file. Defendant has adequately demonstrated a nonretaliatory reason for
Plaintiff’s termination: his repeated safety violations. Thus, the burden shifts back to Plaintiff to show
pretext.
Plaintiff argues Defendant’s asserted justification is pretextual because the forklift accident was a “minor
AFFIRMED.
Question: Based on the evidence presented, what is the most likely reason Peterson was fired?
Question: Is that a violation of FMLA?
1
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7139 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2012.
4 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
Health Insurance
Companies are not required to provide their employees with health insurance. However, current
legislation specifies that, starting in 2014, employers who have more than 50 full-time employees must
pay a penalty if they do not provide basic health insurance. In addition, company insurance policies must
Common-Law Protections
The employment-at-will doctrine was created by the courts. Because that rule has sometimes led to
grossly unfair results, the courts have now created a major exception to the rule—wrongful discharge.
Wrongful Discharge: Violating Public Policy
As a general rule, an employer may not fire an employee for a reason that violates basic social rights,
Case: Kozloski v. American Tissue Services Foundation.
2
Facts: American Tissue Services Foundation (ATSF) supplies human tissue for use in both research and
transplantation into live patients. Kevin Noyes was the director of procurement of tissue. Paul Kozloski
was president and COO, and Robert Turner was Chairman of the Board and also Executive Director of
Lifeshare, which was a major supplier of tissue to ATSF.
Mike Slack, an employee of ATSF revealed to Noyes that he has ordered a subordinate to falsify a
donor medical record and change the donor’s blood type on the form. This falsification was not only
Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law 5
dismiss on the grounds that Minnesota law on wrongful discharge only protected employees who were
fired for refusing to break the law.
Issue: Does the public policy doctrine in Minnesota apply?
Holding: Yes, ATSF’s motion to dismiss was denied. According to the court, the Plaintiffs claim their
terminations occurred as a direct result of, and in retaliation for their reporting to their employer and the
The FDA regulations regarding the safe transfer of tissues from cadavers for use in live patients
emphasize the pubic safety and protection of citizens, and thus encompass a clear public policy regarding
public safety. Noyes and Kozloski’s arguments that they were required by law to report the violations to
the FDA only bolster this finding.
Question: Why did Turner fire Noyes and Kozloski?
in reporting the violations.
Question: Under a traditional employment-at-will doctrine, did Turner have the right to fire Noyes
and Kozloski?
Question: Did the court permit Turner to fire Noyes and Kozloski?
Question: How did the court define the public policy doctrine?
Question: Is this holding a narrow or broad interpretation of the public policy doctrine?
Answer: It seems to be a more narrow interpretation of the public policy doctrine. The court stated
Additional Example: Public Policy
Mark Lewis was a master mechanic who managed a Firestone store in Tucson. He claimed that Firestone
fired him because he refused to tell customers that certain parts and maintenance procedures were
recommended by the manufacturer when, in fact, they were not. His regional manager told him to give
up his “ridiculous ideals” and become part of the “real world.” Firestone also expected Lewis to tell
customers that a “certified” technician had examined their cars even though, in most cases, the technician
was neither certified nor competent.
3
Question: Mark Lewis says he was fired for refusing to sell customers parts and service that they did not
need. What is the difference between being an aggressive salesperson and committing fraud? How many
of us need everything we buy?
Answer: It is okay to say, “We recommend that your car have a check-up every 6 months.” That is not
Question: What did it want Mark Lewis to say?
Question: Did Firestone violate public policy by firing Lewis?
3
Sam Negri, “Car–Repair Firm Accused of Lying,” Arizona Republic, June 8, 1991, vol. 102, no. 21, §E, p. 6.
6 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
employee for refusing to break the law.
Question: Did Firestone expect Lewis to break the law?
Answer: What Firestone asked Lewis to do sounds like fraud. This went beyond mere puffery.
Question: What if Firestone had simply ordered him to tell customers that their cars needed maintenance
when he did not believe that to be the case, and then had fired him when he refused?
the jurisdiction.
Question: Does an employer ever have the right to require workers to participate in an illegal scheme?
Suppose that compliance with state pollution control regulations would force a company out of business.
When the life of the company is at stake, does the boss have a right to expect a worker to cooperate by
fudging records?
Answer: No, but students don’t always see it that way. What happens in society if everyone decides
Contract Law
Traditionally, many employers (and employees) thought that only a formal, signed document qualified as
an employment contract. Increasingly, however, courts have been willing to enforce an employer’s more
casual promises, whether written or oral. Sometimes courts have also been willing to imply contract terms
in the absence of an express agreement.
A few contract terms that courts have upheld:
• Oral promises made during the hiring process can be enforceable, even if not approved by the
Tort Law
Workers have successfully sued their employers under the following tort theories.
Defamation
Employers may be liable for defamation when they give false and unfavorable references about a former
employee.
More than half of the states, however, recognize a qualified privilege for employers who give references
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Employers who condone cruel treatment of their workers face liability under the tort of intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law 7
Whistleblowing
No one likes to be accused of wrongdoing even if (or, perhaps, especially if) the accusations are true. This
is exactly what whistleblowers do: they are employees who disclose illegal behavior on the part of their
employer.
The False Claims Act. The recovery is shared by the government (who receives 75 percent to 85 percent)
under the statute.
The Dodd-Frank Act. Anyone who provides information to the government about violations of
securities or commodities laws is entitled to a payout of from 10 to 30 percent of whatever award the
government receives, provided that the award tops $1 million. If a company retaliates against tipsters,
Constitutional protection for government employees. Employees of federal, state, and local
Statutory protection for federal employees. The Civil Service Reform Act and the Whistleblower
Privacy in the Workplace
Employees are entitled under the common law to a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, in the
absence of a specific law to the contrary, employers do have the right to fire workers for off-duty conduct.
A few states, such as California, have passed so-called “lifestyle laws” that protect the right of employees
to engage in any lawful activity or use any lawful product when off duty.
About half the states and the federal government have passed laws that protect particular off-duty
conduct, such as smoking or use of legal drugs.
You Be the Judge: Rodrigues v. Scotts Lawnservice
4
Facts: Scotts Lawnservice refused to hire tobacco users. It also tested all employees for both
illegal drugs and nicotine. Scotts offered Rodrigues a job “contingent upon successful completion of
a pre-hire screening which includes a nicotine test.” Rodrigues voluntarily submitted a urine
sample and started work.
Shortly thereafter, a Scotts’ supervisor saw a pack of cigarettes on Rodrigues’ dashboard and
4
639 F. Supp. 2d 131 United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 2009
8 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
Argument for Rodrigues: Under Massachusetts law, a person has a right to be free from
unreasonable interference with his privacy. As a result, employers are not allowed to exercise total
control over their employees’ personal lives. For Scotts to require a test that reveals what Rodrigues
has been doing at home or in his car, is a clear violation of his privacy rights.
Smoking outside of work has nothing to do with Mr. Rodrigues’s job performance.
We would have no argument with Scotts if the company prohibited employees from smoking while
Question: What if Rodrigues had been an “embarrassed smoker” who smoked only while alone and
inside his own home with the blinds drawn?Answer: If Rodrigues was truly able to hide his smoking,
he probably would not have been in this position.
Alcohol and Drug Use
Under federal law, private employers are permitted to test for alcohol and illegal drugs. However, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is the federal agency charged with
Polygraph Tests
Under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, employers may not require, or even suggest, that
Electronic Monitoring of the Workplace
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) permits employers to monitor workers’
telephone calls and email messages if (1) the employee consents, (2) the monitoring occurs in the
ordinary course of business, or (3) in the case of email, the employer provides the email system.
Social Media
Social media are the newest challenge facing employers and workers alike. The law is uncertain and
on the Internet to be public.
Immigration
Because of discrimination laws, employers should not ask about an applicant’s country of origin, but they
Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law 9
Workplace Safety
In 1970, Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) to ensure safe working
conditions.
Financial Protection
Congress and the states have enacted laws that provide employees with a measure of financial security.
All of the laws in this section were created by statute, not by the courts.
Fair Labor Standards Act: Minimum Wage, Overtime and
Child Labor
Passed in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulates wages and limits child labor nationally. It
Workers’ Compensation
Workers’ compensation statutes ensure that employees receive payment for injuries incurred at work.
Social Security
The federal Social Security system began in 1935, during the depths of the Great Depression, to provide a
Pension Benefits
In 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to protect workers
covered by private pension plans. Under ERISA, employers are not required to establish pension plans,
but if they do, they must follow federal rules.
Labor Law and Collective Bargaining
Without unions to represent employee interests, employers could simply fire any troublemaking workers
who complained about conditions in factories or mines. By joining together, workers could bargain with
their employers on more equal terms.
Key Pro-Union Statutes
In 1932 Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibited federal court injunctions in
nonviolent labor disputes. By taking away the injunction remedy, Congress was declaring that workers
should be permitted to organize unions and to use their collective power to achieve legitimate economic
ends.
10 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
the right of workers to form unions and encourages management and unions to bargain collectively and
productively.
Known as the NLRA or the Wagner Act, this statute:
• Created the National Labor Relations Board to enforce labor laws;
Section 7 guarantees employees the right to organize and join unions, bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and engage in other concerted activities.
Section 8 prohibits employers from engaging in the following unfair labor practices (ULPs):
• Interfering with union organizing efforts
Organizing a Union
Exclusivity
Under section 9 of the NLRA, a validly recognized union is the exclusive representative of the
employees. A collective bargaining unit is the precisely defined group of employees who will be
represented by a particular union.
Organizing Stages
A union organizing effort generally involves the following pattern.
Campaign. Union organizers talk with employees—or attempt to talk—and interest them in forming a
union.
Authorization Cards. Union organizers ask workers to sign authorization cards, which state that the
particular worker requests the specified union to act as her sole bargaining representative. If a union
by at least 30 percent of the workers.
Election. All members of the proposed bargaining unit vote on whether they want the union to represent
them. If more than 50 percent of the workers vote for the union, the NLRB designates that union as the
Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law 11
The “Card-Check” Debate. Before becoming president, then-Senator Obama co-introduced a bill called
the Employee Free Choice Act. This bill provides that, once more than 50% of workers sign an
authorization card, the NLRB must immediately designate that union as the exclusive representative of all
members in the bargaining unit without an election.
Organizing: Actions
What Workers May Do —The NLRA guarantees employees the right to talk among themselves about
Additional Case: Progressive Electric, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
5
Facts: Progressive Electric was a non-union electrical contractor. The International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW) targeted the company for organizing.
Progressive advertised in the local paper that it was accepting applications for electrician/technicians.
Without revealing his IBEW membership, David Cousins responded to the ad and was hired. A month
Don Hildreth, a Progressive foreman, told Cousins and one other employee that Neeman “didn’t want
any union crap around here.” “If the unions got into Progressive, Progressive would lose contracts and
would go out of business because Progressive couldn’t afford the Union wages and benefits.”
Neeman held a company meeting, where he told his employees: “Alright, I’ve been quiet up ‘til
the board, drew a circle around it and but a slash through it.
Progressive later filled several positions with non-union members, never advertising the jobs or
contacting the IBEW applicants.
IBEW filed charges with the NLRB, which concluded that Progressive had committed an unfair labor
practice by threatening job loss and plant closures if the union organized the company. Progressive
appealed.
Issues: Did the company commit an ULP?
Holding: Judgment for the NLRB affirmed. According to the court, it is an unfair labor practice for an
According to the court, the Board’s finding is reasonable. Neeman accepted the Union Applicants’
information; he lied to them, assuring them that he would call, when in fact he had no such intention. The
Board also pointed to numerous instances such as multiple Union letters, which Neeman received by fax
12 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
Question: What is a ULP?
Question: What ULP did the Board and the court conclude that Progressive committed?
Progressive was discriminating against union members for employment at the company.
Question: Why did Progressive not want to hire union members?
Answer: According to the foreman, Progressive did not want to hire union members because the
Question: Aren’t increased expenses, such as higher wages, a legitimate reason for not hiring
someone?
Drafting Exercise: Advising Management
If you assigned this problem, this is a useful place to discuss it. Below are Parton Parcel’s proposed
actions and suggested responses.
• Speaking to individual workers, to let them know what management regards as the dangers of
unionization, including economic harm to the company, and possible layoffs
Comment: Management is entitled to speak to workers and advocate its position. However, it may not
• Assembling all workers, in large groups, to speak against unionization, and asking all workers to
declare publicly whether they intend to vote for or against the union
Comment: Same comment in terms of management’s right to speak. However, a court would likely
Comment: This conduct definitely would be a ULP.
• Immediately laying off all desk clerks and subcontracting the work to a part-time labor force
Comment: Although management has the right to restructure its company, it may not take such steps in a
Collective Bargaining
The NLRA permits the parties to bargain almost any subject they wish, but it only requires them to
bargain certain issues. Mandatory subjects include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment. Both the union and the employer must bargain in good faith. However, they are not
obligated to reach an agreement.
Landmark Case: NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing Co.
6
Facts: A union representing workers at Truitt Manufacturing Company requested a raise of 10 cents per
hour for all members. The company offered an additional 2.5 cents per hour, and argued that a larger
6
351 U.S. 149, United States Supreme Court, 1956.
Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law 13
increase would bankrupt the company. The union demanded to examine Truitt’s books, and when the
company refused, the union complained to the National Labor Relations Board.
Excerpts from Justice Black’s Decision:
We think that in determining whether the obligation of good-faith bargaining has been met, the Board
has a right to consider an employer’s refusal to give information about its financial status. While
Congress did not compel agreement between employers and bargaining representatives, it did require
Good-faith bargaining necessarily requires that claims made by either bargainer should be honest
claims. This is true about an asserted inability to pay an increase in wages. If such an argument is
important enough to present in the give and take of bargaining, it is important enough to require some
Reversed.
Question: What is good faith bargaining?
Question: Why did the court say that the employer failed to bargain in good faith?
Answer: The court stated that, in this circumstance, it was reasonable for the employees’ union to
Subcontracting Work
Can American workers compete with foreigners? Often, the answer is “no,” but the disparity has nothing
to do with hard work or discipline. Many American companies have shipped jobs overseas to take
advantage of extraordinarily low wages in developing countries. Indonesia has become one of the world’s
largest manufacturers of American athletic shoes. Factories there churn out millions of pairs of Nikes,
Reeboks, and other popular brands.
14 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
Workers in these and other factories can barely subsist on their wages. Most live in squalid shacks,
often without water or sanitation. The majority are malnourished. U.S. labor organizations are
General Questions:
• When American companies subcontract part or all of the work to make an athletic shoe, what
effect does that have on American workers?
Concerted Action
Concerted action refers to any tactics union members take in unison to gain some bargaining advantage. It
Strikes
-The NLRA guarantees employees the right to strike, but with some limitations.
-The union may strike as an economic weapon, but it must notify management of its intention to do so
and then must wait 60 days. This cooling off period is designed to give both sides a chance to reassess
negotiations and to decide whether some additional compromise would be wiser than enduring a strike.
-Many states have outlawed strikes by public employees.
Ethics: “Work to Rule”
There is no perfect answer to the dilemma of teachers refusing to write college recommendation letters or
engage in other activities outside the letter of their collective bargaining agreement. The teachers’ point
Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law 15
Additional Assignment:
Students who researched a current strike could present their findings here.
Multiple Choice Questions
1. Brook moved from Denver to San Francisco to take a job with an advertising agency. His
employment contract stated that he was “at will and could be terminated at any time.” After 28
months with the company, he was fired without explanation. Which of the following statements is
true?
(a) His contract implied that he could only be fired for cause.
(b) Because he had a contract, he was not an employee at will.
(c) He could only be fired for a good reason.
(d) He could be fired for any reason.
(e) He could be fired for any reason except a bad reason.
2. CPA QUESTION An unemployed CPA generally would receive unemployment compensation
benefits if the CPA:
(a) Was fired as a result of the employer’s business reversals
(b) Refused to accept a job as an accountant while receiving extended benefits
(c) Was fired for embezzling from a client
(d) Left work voluntarily without good cause
3. During a job interview with Venetia, Jack reveals that he and his wife are expecting twins. Venetia
asks him if he is planning to take a leave once the babies are born. When Jack admits that he would
like to take a month off work, he can see her face fall. She ultimately decides not to hire him because
of the twins. Which of the following statements are true?
(a) Venetia has violated the FMLA.
(b) Venetia has violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
(c) Venetia has violated Title VII.
(d) All of the above.
(e) None of the above.
4. Which of the following statutes defines unfair labor practices and ensures workers’ right to form a
union?
16 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
(a) The Norris-LaGuardia Act
(b) The National Labor Relations Act
(c) The Labor-Management Relations Act
(d) The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
5. Alpha Company’s workers walk out on strike. The company hires replacement workers so that it can
continue to operate its business. When the strike ends, Alpha must rehire the original workers if the
strike was over ________________.
(a) wages
(b) an unfair labor practice
(c) both A and B
(d) none of the above
Essay Questions
1. Debra Agis worked in a Ground Round restaurant. The manager informed the waitresses that “there
was some stealing going on.” Until he found out who was doing it, he intended to fire all the
waitresses in alphabetical order, starting with the letter “A.” Dionne then fired Agis. Does she have a
valid claim against her employer?
2. You Be the Judge: WRITING PROBLEM FedEx gave Marcie Dutschmann an
employment handbook stating that: (1) she was an at-will employee, (2) the handbook did not create
any contractual rights and (3) employees who were fired had the right to a termination hearing. The
company fired Dutschmann, claiming that she had falsified delivery records. She said that FedEx was
retaliating against her because she had complained of sexual harassment. FedEx refused her request
for a termination hearing. Did the employee handbook create an implied contract guaranteeing
Dutschmann a hearing? Argument for FedEx: The handbook could not have been clearer – it did not
create a contract. Dutschmann is an employee at will and is not entitled to a hearing. Argument for
Dutschmann: FedEx intended that employees would rely on the handbook.The company used
promises of a hearing to attract and retain good employees. Dutschmann was entitled to a hearing.
3. Triec, Inc., is a small electrical contracting company in Springfield, Ohio, owned by its executives
Yeazell, Jones, and Heaton. Employees contacted the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, which began an organizing drive. Six of the 11 employees in the bargaining unit signed
authorization cards. The company declined to recognize the union, which petitioned the NLRB to
schedule an election. The company then granted several new benefits for all workers, including
Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law 17
higher wages, paid vacations, and other measures. When the election was held, only 2 of the 11
bargaining unit members voted for the union. Did the company violate the NLRA?
Answer: Yes, the company violated the NLRA by extending benefits during an organizing campaign,
4. Q-1 Motor Express was an interstate trucking company. When a union attempted to organize Q-1’s
drivers, it met heavy resistance. A supervisor told one driver that if he knew what was good for him,
he would stay away from the union organizer. The company president told another employee that he
had the right to fire everybody, close the company, and then rehire new drivers after 72 hours. He
made numerous other threats to workers and their families. Based on the extreme nature of the
company’s opposition, what exceptional remedy did the union seek before the NLRB?
5. Billy comes down with chicken pox and is sent home from school. His mother takes him to a
pediatrician. The doctor tells her, “Well…he should be fine in about a week. Bed rest is all he really
needs – and plenty of fluids.” Billy’s mother calls her employer and requests FMLA leave to take
care of Billy for the next few days. Must the employer grant the leave? Why or why not?
Answer: Billy’s mother is not entitled to FMLA leave. Billy is a “close relative”, but he does not have
Discussion Questions
1. When Walton Weiner interviewed for a job with McGraw-Hill, Inc., he was assured that the company
would not terminate an employee without “just cause.” Weiner also signed a contract specifying that
his employment would be subject to the provisions of McGraw–Hill’s handbook. The handbook said,
“[The] company will resort to dismissal for just and sufficient cause only, and only after all practical
steps toward rehabilitation or salvage of the employee have been taken and failed. However, if the
welfare of the company indicates that dismissal is necessary, then that decision is arrived at and is
carried out forthrightly.” After eight years, Weiner was fired suddenly for “lack of application.” Does
Weiner have a valid claim against McGraw-Hill?
Answer: The court held that the handbook had created a contract between Weiner and McGraw-Hill
2. Some companies now require all job applicants to provide their Facebook login information so that
the potential employer can learn more about them. Is this behavior ethical on the part of an employer?
18 Unit 3 Agency and Employment Law
3. Should employers be allowed to fire smokers? Nicotine is highly addictive and many smokers begin
as teen-agers when they may not fully understand the consequences of their decision. As Mark Twain,
who began smoking at 12, famously said, “Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I
know because I’ve done it thousands of times.”
4. Union membership has fallen steadily in recent decades in part because many unionized
manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas. Do you believe that unions will make a comeback in
new industries? Would you prefer to be a member of a union if you had a choice? Why or why not?
5. Would you personally be less likely to apply for a job if you were required to first pass a polygraph
exam? What if you were required to pass a drug test? For legal or illegal drugs? Would you be less
likely to apply because you thought the company was too intrusive or because you want the right to
use these substances? What if the company required you to quit smoking or chewing tobacco?
Bonus Exam Strategy:
Question: Janet recently joined the Freewill Pentecostal Holiness Church and as a member she is not
allowed to wear pants. Her employer, Sal’s Seafood Sales and Distributing, requires all employees
to wear coverall (overalls) provided by the company for sanitary reasons. Although Janet wore the
uniform prior to joining the church, she now refuses to wear the coveralls. She explained to Sal
that wearing pants was against her religion. Sal offered to allow her to split the seams on the
coveralls and wear it over her dress. Janet refused. Sal fired her for insubordination. Does Janet
have a claim against Sal’s?
Strategy: This question is an employment discrimination issue. We know that under Title VII, an
employer may not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, gender, or religion. When a
religious belief conflicts with an employment policy, the employer has a duty to reasonably
accommodate the employee’s belief, unless so doing would cause an undue hardship for the
employer.
Result: Janet has a conflict with her belief and the requirement to wear the coveralls. She explained
this to Sal. Sal offered to accommodate Janet’s beliefs by allowing her to split the seams on the
coveralls so that they could be worn over her dress, however Janet refused. Sal’s offer to
accommodate Janet’s beliefs seems reasonable: it would allow her to abide be her religious belief
in not wearing pants, while fulfilling the sanitary requirements of her job. Janet does not have a
claim against Sal’s.
