Business Law Test 3: Part 1

Abdel applies for a job as a bus driver with the Overland Omnibus Corporation. Abdel's employer is worried that it might not be safe to allow someone of Middle Eastern descent to drive around a bus full of people. Therefore, Abdel is asked to submit to a more stringent background check than the other applicants. Which of the following is true of this case? A) Abdel has no basis for a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the act does not provide protection against discrimination based on country of citizenship under any circumstances. B) Abdel has no basis for a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because Overland Omnibus Corporation is a private employer. C) Abdel can bring a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he was treated differently based on his ethnicity. D) Abdel can bring a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of the bona fide occupational qualification defense.

C) Abdel can bring a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he was treated differently based on his ethnicity.

Magda comes to work in clothes that are highly reflective of her national origin. This happens to violate the dress code of her workplace. After being politely asked to follow the office dress code several times by her supervisor, Magda is finally asked to return home and change into clothing that conforms to the company's dress code. Which of the following holds true if Magda decides to file a discrimination claim based on national origin? A) Magda has a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for national origin discrimination because it guarantees her the right to freedom of cultural expression. B) The employer can defend the dress code if it can show that Magda's attire overlaps with her religion. C) Magda's employer can defend the dress code because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not require an employer to accommodate an employee's attire of national origin. D) Magda has a claim under Title VII the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for national origin discrimination if she can prove that her attire does not encourage other employees to dress casually

C) Magda's employer can defend the dress code because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not require an employer to accommodate an employee's attire of national origin.

An employer may decide to not hire an applicant solely because they wear a headscarf or turban if there is a policy in place stating that employees may not wear hats, etc. at work.

False

An employer who enters into a contract with a government agency has an affirmative obligation to ensure that Asians are hired and retained without regard to their religion or national origin based on the Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion or National Origin.

False

Citizenship and national origin are the same

False

In King v. Township of East Lampeter, the court found that the Amish are a distinct racial group and have a separate ethnic identity beyond religious observance. Thus they were protected under section 1981.

False

In the case of Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., the court followed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) guidelines and held that the English-only rule in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

False

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) created a special classification, "Code Z," to designate complaints from undocumented workers regarding workplace abuses

False

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is charged with combating civil rights violations against Arab, Sikh, and South-Asian Americans, as well as those who are perceived to be members of those groups.

False

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) allows discrimination in favor of U.S. Citizens (as opposed to non-U.S. Citizens legally residing in the U.S.) but only so long as the employer can demonstrate that citizenship is a BFOQ.

False

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) requires that a court find an employer liable for national origin harassment even if most would say that the conduct is not offensive and the individual involved is just overly sensitive.

False

Criminal penalties can be imposed for violations of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

True

Innocent or negligent discrimination is a defense to a claim of discrimination under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

True

The discharge of a teacher from her services is upheld when, although fluent in English, she spoke with such a thick accent that her students found it difficult to follow her.

True

Vincente, a Mexican-American, is five feet five inches tall, which is the average height for Mexican-American men. He applies for a job as a mechanic with Rev Motors but is not hired as he does not meet the minimum height requirement for the position, which is five feet eight inches. If the height requirement cannot be justified by business necessity, which of the following will hold true in this scenario? A) Vincente has a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if he can show that the height requirement adversely impacts Mexican-Americans. B) Vincente has a national origin discrimination claim under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 because he is a member of a protected class. C) Vincente does not have a national origin discrimination claim as long as he is a citizen of the United States. D) Vincente does not have a national origin discrimination claim because Rev Motors applied the height requirement to all applicants

A) Vincente has a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if he can show that the height requirement adversely impacts Mexican-Americans.

Petri, who runs a Basque restaurant, wants his diners to have an authentic culinary experience. Thus, he wants to recruit qualified individuals of Basque origin for his restaurant. Petri can avoid a claim of national origin discrimination and still limit the job to individuals of Basque origin by showing that: A) an applicant's ability to speak fluent Basque and understand Basque cuisine are bona fide occupational qualifications. B) U.S citizens view people with Basque ancestry as exotic. C) it is difficult for people with Basque ancestry to be employed in other jobs. D) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows employers to discriminate against employees or applicants on the basis of their national origin without any legitimate cause.

A) an applicant's ability to speak fluent Basque and understand Basque cuisine are bona fide occupational qualifications.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship when: A) citizenship discrimination has the purpose or effect of national origin discrimination. B) the victim is a citizen of a developed country. C) the victim is an illegal alien in the United States. D) citizenship discrimination is the only way to protect positions that are intimately related to the process of self-government

A) citizenship discrimination has the purpose or effect of national origin discrimination.

If an employer enforces an English-only policy in all areas of the workplace and at all times, including break times and other free time, the: A) employer's policy is presumptively discriminatory according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). B) employer is much safer from a charge of national origin discrimination than an employer who only enforces the policy in certain areas and at certain times. C) employer impermissibly violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects the ability of workers to express their cultural heritage at the workplace. D) employer's policy is not unlawful because all individuals, irrespective of their national origin, are required to speak English in the United States.

A) employer's policy is presumptively discriminatory according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

To claim a prima facie case for national origin discrimination, an employee needs to prove that: A) his or her employer's employment decision caused an adverse employment action to him or her. B) his or her position was filled by someone who is a member of the same protected class that he or she belongs to. C) his or her employer's employment decision or action was a business necessity. D) his or her employer's job requirements exceed his or her qualifications.

A) his or her employer's employment decision caused an adverse employment action to him or her

Once an employee has articulated a prima facie case of discrimination based on national origin, the burden falls on his or her employer to: A) identify a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). B) prove that there has been a violation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. C) establish that no other employee was subjected to such disparate treatment. D) show that the employee belongs to a protected class.

A) identify a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).

Employers can avoid liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for national origin discrimination after implementing an English-only rule if they can show that the rule: A) is necessary to maintain supervisory control of the workplace. B) is used as a sole basis to promote employees within the workplace. C) has been primarily used to help differentiate employees based on their national origin. D) has to be followed by employees at all times.

A) is necessary to maintain supervisory control of the workplace.

The term "green card" refers to a ________. A) resident alien card that grants permanent residence in the United States B) card usually provided by employers for the purpose of payroll management C) card that holds details regarding employees' duration of employment D) registration card issued by the federal government to all biracial citizens of the United States

A) resident alien card that grants permanent residence in the United States

Aim Stores, a national retailer, does not permit its employees to wear hats, caps, scarves, hoodies, or anything else on their heads. Aaleyah, a Muslim who wears a traditional hijab, scored very well on interviews but ultimately was not hired by Aim. Aaleyah believes that she was not hired because of the hijab. Which of the following best describes Aaleyah's claim, if any, against Aim Stores? A) Aaleyah never worked for Aim, so she has no Title VII claim against Aim. B) Aaleyah can make a Title VII claim against Aim, and will likely win if she can demonstrate that the hijab was the reason she wasn't hired. C) Aaleyah can make a Title VII claim against Aim, but will likely lose because Aim has the ability to set reasonable workplace policies. D) Aaleyah cannot win a Title VII claim against Aim because Title VII does not provide protection against religious discrimination.

B) Aaleyah can make a Title VII claim against Aim, and will likely win if she can demonstrate that the hijab was the reason she wasn't hired.

Cramer Corporation had an immediate need for a large group of workers to fulfill a project. Although it followed its normal hiring processes, in some cases short-cuts were taken in the interests of getting the workers on board as quickly as possible. As a result, Cramer inadvertently hired some workers without proper documentation. Which of the following best describes Cramer's liability in this situation. A) There is no liability for Cramer. If the undocumented workers are discovered, the consequences are for them and not for the company. B) Cramer is liable for failure to obtain proper documentation showing that the workers were eligible to work in the U.S. Further corporate officers of Cramer can be held personally liable for failure to satisfy these requirements. Civil and criminal penalties may apply. C) Cramer didn't know that the workers weren't eligible to work in the U.S., therefore it cannot be held liable. D) Only the person in charge of hiring at Cramer will be held accountable for bringing in undocumented aliens.

B) Cramer is liable for failure to obtain proper documentation showing that the workers were eligible to work in the U.S. Further corporate officers of Cramer can be held personally liable for failure to satisfy these requirements. Civil and criminal penalties may apply.

Jingfei, an employee of Chinese origin, works as a sales representative at Global Recyclers International. Her supervisor, Ralph, persistently refers to her as "Julie" instead of "Jingfei." Although she objects and asks to be called by her rightful name, Ralph continues to call her "Julie" for over a year and justifies his actions by saying that an American-sounding name would increase her chances of success and would be more acceptable to Global's clientele. Jingfei brings a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which of the following holds true in this case? A) Global Recyclers International will not be liable to Jingfei because the use of "Julie" is neither a racial epithet nor a description of her physical ethnic traits. B) Global Recyclers International will be liable to Jingfei because ethnic characteristics go beyond skin color and other physical traits and can include names. C) Global Recyclers International will not be liable to Jingfei because Ralph did not intend his use of "Julie" to be derogatory of her national origin. D) Global Recyclers International will be liable to Jingfei because Title VII provides protection against discrimination based on a victim's country of citizenship.

B) Global Recyclers International will be liable to Jingfei because ethnic characteristics go beyond skin color and other physical traits and can include names.

HealthSmart, a private hospital, employs five workers of Hispanic descent in its maintenance department. Though they were told that they would be performing different tasks on a rotation basis, the maintenance supervisor assigns only the five of them, out of the total 20 maintenance employees, to clean the morgue and the basement every time. Although they requested the hospital's management to change their duties, no changes were made. Which of the following holds true in this case? A) HealthSmart will be liable for national origin discrimination because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides protection against discrimination based on country of citizenship. B) HealthSmart will be liable for national origin discrimination because it illegally segregated the employees based on their national origin, resulting in disparate treatment. C) HealthSmart will not be liable for national origin discrimination because the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employers to discriminate in favor of U.S. citizens. D) HealthSmart will not be liable for national origin discrimination based on the court's ruling in Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.

B) HealthSmart will be liable for national origin discrimination because it illegally segregated the employees based on their national origin, resulting in disparate treatment.

Labuk is a 20-year employee of Whirley Corporation. During his career with Whirley, Labuk has felt uncomfortable with his supervisor, Bob, because of his behavior. On one occasion, Bob told him that foreigners should stop seeking jobs in the United States if they cannot perform. On another occasion, Bob yelled at Labuk and called him an "idiot." Which of the following may be true in this case? A) Labuk has a harassment claim based on national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he belongs to a protected racial class. B) Labuk does not have a harassment claim based on national origin because these two incidents, although offensive, do not create a hostile work environment. C) Labuk has a harassment claim based on national origin because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides protection against discrimination based on country of citizenship. D) Labuk does not have a harassment claim based on national origin because the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employers to discriminate in favor of U.S. citizens.

B) Labuk does not have a harassment claim based on national origin because these two incidents, although offensive, do not create a hostile work environment.

Luis was employed as a quality officer for Slate Mountain Waterworks (SMW), a company with only 12 employees. He had more experience and better qualifications than Brett, who has also been working as a quality officer with SMW for the last three years. Both Luis and Brett apply for the job of chief quality officer within SMW, and Brett is hired for the position. Luis overhears his employer say that he would never promote a Mexican if he could give the job to a real American. Which of the following holds true in this scenario? A) Luis can file a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964. B) Luis can file a national origin discrimination claim under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). C) Luis cannot file a national origin discrimination claim because he is still an employee at Slate Mountain Waterworks. D) Luis cannot file a national origin discrimination claim because Slate Mountain Waterworks did not take any adverse employment action.

B) Luis can file a national origin discrimination claim under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

Melanie, a white female employed at The Office Corner for three months, is married to Muhammad, who is of Middle Eastern descent. Melanie has been subjected to verbal abuse almost every day ever since her co-workers became aware of her husband's ethnicity. She has been called a "traitor" and a "terrorist." Her co-workers refuse to work with her, and her supervisor condoned this behavior by assigning her tasks in the stockroom when previously, she assisted customers in the electronics department. Which of the following holds true in this scenario? A) Melanie does not have a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because she is not a member of a protected class. B) Melanie does have a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because she is being harassed based on the national origin of her husband. C) Melanie does not have a national origin discrimination claim because she has only been employed for three months. D) Melanie does have a discrimination claim based on race only if she is a citizen of the United States.

B) Melanie does have a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because she is being harassed based on the national origin of her husband.

To successfully claim discrimination based on national origin, an employee must demonstrate all of the following except: A) The employer made a decision against the applicant. B) The applicant was a member of a protected class based on gender, race or another Title VII category (besides national origin). C) The position was filled by someone who was not a member of a protected class. D) The applicant was qualified for the position for which he or she applied.

B) The applicant was a member of a protected class based on gender, race or another Title VII category (besides national origin).

An employer considering an "English-only" job requirement should be aware that: A) "English-only" job requirements are not permitted regardless of the circumstances. B) The employer should carefully consider the degree of fluency necessary for each job. This degree of fluency may not be the same for all areas of the workplace so a blanket policy may not work. The employer should establish a level of English fluency for each area, as appropriate. C) The employer should carefully consider the degree of fluency necessary for the workplace, and should craft a policy that reflects the minimum degree of fluency necessary for any job within the workplace to avoid a charge of discrimination. D) If the employer employs 100 or more non-English speaking employees, the employer may not implement an English-only rule, and must provide a translation for all important workplace instructions based on the language spoken by the majority of non-English speaking employees.

B) The employer should carefully consider the degree of fluency necessary for each job. This degree of fluency may not be the same for all areas of the workplace so a blanket policy may not work. The employer should establish a level of English fluency for each area, as appropriate.

Ken is a paying resident at the Twin Oaks Senior Center. He is often seen making ethnic slurs at Chia, a Korean employee. He also refuses to be served or helped by her and others of the same national origin as Chia. Sometimes, he even complains to the other residents that Chia is not qualified for her job and needs to be replaced. Chia reports this to her supervisor but is asked to ignore Ken because he is just a strange old man. Chia files a complaint of national origin discrimination. Which of the following holds true in this scenario? A) Twin Oaks Senior Center is not liable to Chia because the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employers to discriminate in favor of U.S. citizens. B) Twin Oaks Senior Center is liable to Chia because it took no action to stop the harassment. C) Twin Oaks Senior Center is liable to Chia because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides protection against discrimination based on country of citizenship. D) Twin Oaks Senior Center is not liable to Chia because her case does not involve any physical harassment

B) Twin Oaks Senior Center is liable to Chia because it took no action to stop the harassment.

Amiri, who belongs to the Maori tribe, aspires to be a deputy sheriff in Upper Elm County. Amiri sports a small moko tattoo across his cheeks and nose as a symbol of his heritage. Per the dress code, however, sheriffs are not allowed to have any visible tattoos. Amiri is told that he will need to remove his tattoo before he can apply to be a deputy sheriff. Which of the following will hold true in this scenario? A) Amiri will prevail in a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because his tattoo honors his heritage. B) Upper Elm County can defend itself against Amiri's claim because a dress code is permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. C) Upper Elm County can defend itself against Amiri's claim if it can be shown that the tattoo overlaps with his religion. D) Amiri will prevail in a national origin discrimination claim if he uses the bona fide occupational qualification defense to show that his tattoo does not disrupt the dress code

B) Upper Elm County can defend itself against Amiri's claim because a dress code is permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Dalip, an Asian male, is fired after being late for work three times. His employer has a rule that employees may be fired after being late for work twice. However, the rule has only been enforced against Asian workers while employees of other national origins have been retained with only a warning. In this scenario, Dalip: A) has a national origin discrimination claim based on disparate impact. B) has a national origin discrimination claim based on disparate treatment. C) has a discrimination claim if he uses the bona fide occupational qualification defense to show that his employer's actions were unlawful. D) does not have a national origin discrimination claim because his employer was only trying to enforce a neutral policy.

B) has a national origin discrimination claim based on disparate treatment.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA): A) applies to employers with 3 or more employees. B) requires knowledge and intent to discriminate. C) applies regardless of the employer's knowledge or intent. D) allows employers to knowingly hire those not legally authorized for employment in the United States.

B) requires knowledge and intent to discriminate.

Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), if an employee gains employment with false documentation but then later obtains proper work authorization, his or her employer: A) must notify the Department of Homeland Security so that the employee can be prosecuted for perjury. B) should correct the relevant information on the Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form 1-9). C) should fire the employee for misconduct based on falsification of the employment application. D) must notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that the employee can be deported

B) should correct the relevant information on the Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form 1-9).

Nesbitt hires Francois, an alien working in the United States with the legal authority to do so. One month later, Francois loses his right to work in the United States. Which of the following holds true in this case? A) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois cannot constitute a violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) under any circumstance. B) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute national origin discrimination against individuals with American citizenship. C) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute a violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) if Nesbitt knows that Francois has become an unauthorized alien. D) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois is not unlawful because it is an unfair immigration-related practice for a person to discriminate against any individual based on their national origin

C) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute a violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) if Nesbitt knows that Francois has become an unauthorized alien.

Hassan, an undocumented worker employed by Robco Warehouse, is routinely harassed because of his Middle Eastern ancestry. His supervisors and co-workers often refer to him as a terrorist and call him "Taliban." He complains to the management about the harassment and after a few days, his supervisor conducts an investigation and finds out that Hassan is an illegal alien. This information is relayed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Which of the following is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) most likely to conclude? A) Robco Warehouse is not liable because the Immigration Reform and Control Act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship under any circumstances. B) Hassan has a claim of discrimination because the Immigration Reform and Control Act does not allow discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against illegal aliens. C) Robco Warehouse will be liable if the company acquired information on Hassan's status through a retaliatory investigation. D) Hassan does not have a claim of discrimination because the Fair Labor Standards Act does not protect undocumented workers from abuse.

C) Robco Warehouse will be liable if the company acquired information on Hassan's status through a retaliatory investigatio

National origin was included in Title VII's list of protected classes: A) To ensure that illegal immigrants are given a fair chance at employment. B) As a last-minute attempt to add controversy to the legislation so that it would not be enacted. C) To ensure that employers do not make employment decisions based on preconceived notions about employees' or applicants' country of origin. D) To satisfy international critics of the legislation who suggested that the protection it afforded was simply not enough.

C) To ensure that employers do not make employment decisions based on preconceived notions about employees' or applicants' country of origin.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the prohibition against national origin discrimination is subject to the political function exception, which allows: A) only a naturalized U.S. citizen to run for president of the United States. B) only private employers to discriminate against individuals based on their country of origin. C) discrimination against a noncitizen when the position is intimately related to the process of self-government. D) discrimination against individuals whose national origin is a country with which trade has been outlawed by an act of Congress.

C) discrimination against a noncitizen when the position is intimately related to the process of self-government.

Which of the following is an employer's responsibility under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)? A) Accepting a green card for the purposes of Form I-9 B) Storing Form I-9 records in employee personnel files C) Making threats of reporting an employee to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in retaliation for discrimination complaints or other protected activity D) Asking assistance from the Immigration and Naturalization Service when a document submitted by an employee or an applicant does not reasonably appear to be genuine

D) Asking assistance from the Immigration and Naturalization Service when a document submitted by an employee or an applicant does not reasonably appear to be genuine

Which of the following is a difference between the treatment of discrimination based on national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)? A) The IRCA does not allow discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against legal aliens under any circumstances, whereas Title VII does. B) The IRCA does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship under any circumstances, whereas Title VII does. C) Under IRCA, only employers with 50 or more employees are covered, whereas Title VII covers all employers irrespective of their size. D) Under the IRCA, innocent or negligent discrimination is a complete defense to a claim of discrimination, whereas under Title VII, it is not.

D) Under the IRCA, innocent or negligent discrimination is a complete defense to a claim of discrimination, whereas under Title VII, it is not.

According to Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., a facially neutral workplace policy will not cause a disparate impact with respect to a privilege of employment on the basis of national origin if the: A) employer requires only a certain group of employees to adhere to the policy at all times. B) policy is primarily meant to put only employees from a specific national origin group at a disadvantage. C) affected employee can show that the policy is not a business necessity. D) employer defines the privilege narrowly, if the policy is one that an affected employee can readily observe, and nonobservance is purely a matter of individual preference.

D) employer defines the privilege narrowly, if the policy is one that an affected employee can readily observe, and nonobservance is purely a matter of individual preference.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) prohibits: A) discrimination claims against employers with 4 to 14 employees. B) employers from enacting a preference for U.S. citizens if the job applicants are all equally qualified. C) discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against legal aliens under all circumstances. D) employers from hiring those not legally authorized for employment in the United States

D) employers from hiring those not legally authorized for employment in the United States

Jing, a Chinese citizen who is legally permitted to work in the United States, and Sophia, a white American woman, apply for the same job at Golden Bird Enterprises. Jing loses the job to Sophia. In order to prevail in a national origin discrimination claim under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Jing must prove that: A) the job is a business necessity for her. B) she has been living in the United States for more than 20 years. C) the employer has hired other Chinese employees. D) she is more qualified for the job than Sophia.

D) she is more qualified for the job than Sophia