MSM 6304 – Employer had several entry level position openings for staff accountants

MSM 6304 – Employer had several entry level position openings for staff accountantsQUESTION 26
Employer had several entry level position openings for staff accountants. A job requirement was that a candidate must have earned a bachelor’s degree in accounting. There were 100 applications for the 20 positions that were open. Of the 100 applicants, 30 were excluded because they did not have the requisite degrees (20 were men and 10 were women). Of the 70 applicants considered for the position, 40 were men and 30 were women. Ten men were hired and ten women were hired. Several of the female applicants who had accounting degrees but who were not selected are considering filing a claim based on disparate impact. In calculating the 4/5ths rule, should you include in the calculation those who were excluded because they did not have the requisite degree?
a.Yes.
b.No.
1 points

QUESTION 27
Employer had 50 entry level position openings for unskilled laborers. There were 100 female applicants and 50 male applicants. All of these applicants were interviewed and determined to meet the basic qualifications for doing the job. 30 females were hired and 20 males were hired. Has there been a disparate impact?
a.No, because more females than males were actually hired.
b.Yes, because the female success rate was only .30.
c.Yes, because the female success rate was less than 80% of the male success rate.
d.No, because the success rates of both groups were less than .80.
1 points

QUESTION 28
Employee was told by his female boss that he would regret it if he didn’t sleep with her. Employee refused her advances and was terminated as a result. Assuming that Employer was subject to Title VII, has this conduct violated Title VII
a.Yes, because men are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex as well as women.
b.No, because only women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex.
1 points

QUESTION 29
Employee was told by his male boss that he would regret it if he didn’t sleep with him. He refused his advances and was terminated as a result. Assuming that Employer was subject to Title VII, has this conduct violated Title VII.
a.Yes, because Title VII protects one from same-sex discrimination as well as opposite-sex discrimination.
b.No, because Title VII only protects one from opposite-sex discrimination, not same-sex discrimination.
1 points

QUESTION 30
Plaintiff, a female, alleges that the actions of her male co-workers have created a hostile environment based on sexual harassment. Plaintiff complains of various kinds of behavior. What will determine whether Employer is liable to Plaintiff
a.If Plaintiff honestly felt that a hostile environment had been created regardless of what the intent of her co-workers was, Employer will be liable.
b.Even if Plaintiff honestly felt that a hostile environment had been created but her co-workers sincerely did not mean to create a hostile environment, Employer will not be liable.
c.Even if Plaintiff honestly felt that a hostile environment had been created, if a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would NOT have felt that a hostile environment had been created, Employer will not be liable.
1 points

QUESTION 31
Plaintiff, a female, alleges that the actions of her male supervisor have created a hostile environment based on sexual harassment. She has made clear to her supervisor that she finds his behavior offensive. Plaintiff’s supervisor has not taken any tangible employment action against her. Employer has a sexual harassment policy which forbids sexual harassment and provides for protection from sexual harassment if the victim reports the conduct. Plaintiff reported the conduct and the supervisor was terminated. Plaintiff later decides to file a complaint with the EEOC. A right to sue letter is issued. Will Plaintiff prevail in a lawsuit against her employer?
a.Yes, because the employer is absolutely liable for the conduct of the supervisor even though it terminated him when it discovered he was violating the policy.
b.No, because employer had a sexual harassment policy in place and because it terminated Plaintiff’s supervisor for violating the policy.
c.No, because regardless of the company’s response to the Plaintiff’s complaints, there was no tangible employment action taken against Plaintiff by her supervisor.
d.No, because a person in a supervisory position cannot create a hostile work environment; such an environment can only be created by co-workers, vendors, suppliers and/or customers.
1 points

QUESTION 32
Plaintiff, a male, alleges that the actions of his female co-workers have created a hostile environment based on sexual harassment. Employer has a sexual harassment policy which forbids sexual harassment and provides for protection from sexual harassment if the victim reports the conduct. Plaintiff is too embarrassed to report the conduct and quits his job. He files a complaint with the EEOC and later brings suit against Employer. What will the result be?
a.The employer is absolutely liable for the conduct of the co-workers even though Plaintiff did not seek relief under the sexual harassment policy.
b.The employer will be able to escape liability for the sexual harassment because Plaintiff failed to seek relief under the sexual harassment policy.
c.The employer will be liable only if there was some sort of tangible employment action on the part of a company supervisor who had authority over the plaintiff.
1 points

QUESTION 33
Plaintiff, a female, was propositioned several times by her male boss. This conduct was unwelcome and she made sure he knew it. He threatened to fire her if she did not sleep with him. She refused to sleep with him and was fired. Employer has a sexual harassment policy which forbids sexual harassment and provides for protection from sexual harassment if the victim reports the conduct. Plaintiff was too embarrassed to report the conduct. She later files a complaint with the EEOC and brings suit against Employer. What will the result be?
a.The employer is absolutely liable for the conduct of the supervisor even though Plaintiff did not seek relief under the sexual harassment policy.
b.The employer will be able to escape liability for the sexual harassment because Plaintiff failed to seek relief under the sexual harassment policy.
1 points

QUESTION 34
Plaintiff, a female, was propositioned several times by her male boss. This conduct was unwelcome and she made sure he knew it. He threatened to fire her if she did not sleep with him. She refused to sleep with him and made a formal complaint under the company’s sexual harassment policy which forbids sexual harassment and provides for protection from sexual harassment. While the investigation was ongoing, Plaintiff was fired by her boss. Two weeks after her firing, Employer finished its investigation and fired Plaintiff’s old boss for violating the company’s sexual harassment policy. Employer also offered Plaintiff her job back. Plaintiff refuses to accept the job, files a complaint with the EEOC and brings suit against Employer. What will the result be?
a.The employer is absolutely liable for the conduct of the supervisor even though it fired the plaintiff’s old boss and offered Plaintiff her job back.
b.The employer will be able to escape liability for the sexual harassment just because it fired the plaintiff’s old boss and offered Plaintiff her job back.
1 points

QUESTION 35
Based on what you have learned from the reading assignment about harassment in the context of sex, which, if any, of the following are true:
a.Title VII prohibits harassment (either quid pro quo/tangible employment action or hostile environment harassment) only on the basis of one’s sex.
b.Title VII prohibits harassment (either quid pro quo/tangible employment action or hostile environment harassment) on the basis of any characteristic protected by Title VII.
c.Title VII prohibits harassment (either quid pro quo/tangible employment action or hostile environment harassment) on the basis of any characteristic—even those not protected by Title VII.
1 points

QUESTION 36
Plaintiff, a female, applies for a position as a lifeguard at a seaside resort. The lifeguard’s duties are to be on hand to rescue people who are in danger of drowning in the ocean; the resort does not have a swimming pool. The job requirements for the position specifically state that applicants for the position must be able to swim 300 yards in the ocean within a specified time period and must be able to swim 300 yards in the ocean while dragging a 175 pound mannequin within another specified time period. Resort has the same requirements for both male and female applicants. Plaintiff cannot meet these requirements and believes that there should be different requirements for women. Most of the lifeguards at the resort are male. Plaintiff learns that males meet the qualifications at a substantially higher rate than females. Plaintiff brings a lawsuit against resort alleging illegal discrimination. What should the result be?
a.Plaintiff should win because there has been disparate treatment.
b.Plaintiff should win because there has been disparate impact.
c.Plaintiff should not win even if there has been disparate impact if employer can show the ability tests are job related and consistent with business necessity.
d.Plaintiff should not win even if there has been disparate impact if employer can show the ability tests are a bona fide occupational qualification and consistent with business necessity.
1 points

QUESTION 37
Plaintiff, a male, applies for a position as a lifeguard at a seaside resort. The lifeguard’s duties are to be on hand to rescue people who are in danger of drowning in the ocean; the resort does not have a swimming pool. The job requirements for the position specifically state that male applicants for the position must be able to swim 300 yards in the ocean within a specified time period and must be able to swim 200 yards in the ocean while dragging a 175 pound mannequin within another specified time period. The job requirements for the position specifically state that female applicants for the position must be able to swim 200 yards in the ocean within a specified time period and must be able to swim 100 yards in the ocean while dragging a 125 pound mannequin within another specified time period. Plaintiff could not meet the requirements for male lifeguards but he did satisfy the requirements for female life guards. A female is hired for the lifeguard position. Plaintiff brings a lawsuit against resort alleging illegal discrimination. What should the result be? (See p. 147, last paragraph of Other Provisions of Title VII.)
a.Plaintiff should win because there has been disparate treatment.
b.Plaintiff should win because there has been disparate impact.
c.Plaintiff should not win even if there has been disparate impact if employer can show the ability tests are job related and consistent with business necessity.
d.Plaintiff should not win even if there has been disparate impact if employer can show the ability tests are a bona fide occupational qualification and consistent with business necessity.
e.Plaintiff should not win even if there has been disparate treatment if employer can show the ability tests are job related and consistent with business necessity.
1 points

QUESTION 38
Employee complained in writing about several instances at her workplace, alleging those instances were sexual harassment. Employee was terminated for raising the issue. Employee eventually brought a civil action against Employer seeking damages for sexual harassment and retaliation. The judge granted Employer’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Employee had been sexually harassed but allowed the case to proceed to trial on the retaliation claim. Does the law permit a situation in which an employee can lose her discrimination claim but win on a retaliation claim?
a.Yes.
b.No.
1 points

QUESTION 39
Is a defense available to an employer in a hostile environment sexual harassment case when no tangible employment action has been taken against the plaintiff
a.Yes.
b.No.
1 points

QUESTION 40
Employee brings a civil action against employer on grounds that she has been sexually harassed and then retaliated against by being dismissed when she complained about the sexual harassment. Assume the court determines that employee’s sexual harassment claim is without merit and is dismissed. Does the law permit an employer to nonetheless face liability for retaliation? (Choose answer b. In the excerpt of the case I provided, this was not specifically discussed, but it is an extremely important point that you should know. The lesson is that don’t conduct yourself in such a way that you win on the substantive discrimination claim but lose on the retaliation claim.)
a.No.
b.Yes.
1 points

QUESTION 41
This question is based on the Smith v. Akstein case. In order for a plaintiff to establish a claim of constructive discharge in a Title VII case, which of the following must the plaintiff prove?
a.That the working conditions were so unbearable, plaintiff had no reasonable choice except to resign.
b.That the working conditions were deliberately made unbearable by management whose intent it was to force plaintiff to resign.
c.Both a and b.
1 points

QUESTION 42
This question is based on the Smith v. Akstein case. How would the Plaintiff’s case against the Eye Center have been affected if she had been constructively discharged?
a.If she had been constructively discharged, the Eye Center would have been automatically liable (because there would have been a tangible employment action) but since she was not constructively discharged, the Eye Center would be liable only if Plaintiff could convince a jury she had been subjected to sexual harassment that was so severe or pervasive as to have altered the terms or conditions of her employment.
b.The issue of whether Plaintiff was constructively discharged has no bearing on the issue of whether Plaintiff had been subjected to sexual harassment that was so severe or pervasive as to have altered the terms or conditions of her employment.
1 points

QUESTION 43
This question is based on the Smith v. Akstein case. Was the Eye Center protected from liability because it both had a sexual harassment policy in place and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the protections afforded by that policy?
a.Yes.
b.No.

find the cost of your paper