Management: Test 2

अब Quizwiz के साथ अपने होमवर्क और परीक्षाओं को एस करें!

At the bottom of page 103, what does the book say about privacy under the constitution?

"An office is seldom a private enclave free from entry by supervisors, other employees, and business and personal invitees. Instead in many cases offices are continually entered by fellow employees and other visitors during the workday for conferences, consolations, an dither work-related visits... While police... conduct searches for the primary purpose of obtaining evidence for use in criminal...proceedings employers most frequently need to enter the offices and desks of their employees for legitimate work-related reasons wholly unrelated to illegal conduct. Employers and supervisors are focused primarily on the need to complete the government agency's work in a prompt and efficient manner. An employer may have need for correspondence, or a file or report available only in an employee's office while the employee is away... Or, as is alleged to have been the case here, employers may need to safeguard or identify state property or records in an office in connection with a pending investigation into suspected employee malfeasance."

(CRA Title VII)***RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN: what is religion defined as? What is the Plaintiffs BOP? What is the Defendents BOP? What is an example of this?

(You apply this when something specific is not being defined) F. Religion: "Religion" is defined as "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.." 1) Prima Facie Case for Religious Discrimination: (Plaintiffs BOP) a) Plaintiff holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement; b) Plaintiff informed her employer of the conflict; c) Plaintiff was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement Defendants BOP (E'r) *Reasonable accommodation were offered which removed the conflict between religion and job requirement EX) Girl working at Costco, has facial tattoos and piercings due to her beliefs. She gets fired for refusing to remove or cover that up. Her employer offered reasonable accommodations and was therefore not held liable for discrimination.

Brinkley v. Harbour Rec. Ctr: Book question pg. 167 Question 2--> "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Bans discrimination in pay and other compensation based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. And the EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963 makes it illegal for employers to pay men and women different wages for doing the same job ( except to the extend that wage differentials are based on seniority, merit, or factors "other than sex"). Yet, half a century later, there is still a wage gap. In 2012, the national median earnings for women working fulltime, year round was $37,110 or 77 percent of what men working fulltime, year round earned. The wage gap is even greater for African American women and Latinas. Research: (a) Use the interactive map on the website of the National Committee for Pay Equity to compare wages by race and gender in your state. (b) The proposed Fair Pay Act targets the effects of occupational segregation; it seeks to end wage discrimination against those who work in jobs dominated by women or minorities by establishing equal pay for equivalent work. Another proposed law, the Paycheck Fairness Act, calls for Voluntary guidelines for help employers evaluate--and pay-- jobs more fairly. Find out the current status of these bills. What arguments can you make for and against each of them?

**Thing she mentioned was that national media earning for women was 77% of men

SURVEILLANCE AT WORK: Electronic Surveillance--> Statutes: Stored Communications Privacy Act?

*Ammended ECPA *Prohibits intentional and unauthorized access to store communications -Civil and criminal violations -Hard to prove a case

Barnes v. City of Cincinnati

*Another example of transgendered. Cross dressed and E'ers didn't like it. Watched him under a microscope. Gender stereotyping

Valuing Diversity: US v. Windsor (US 2013)

*DOMA--> defines marriage between man and a woman (federal right) -We are still given the right as a state to define marriage and Texas is not changing its mind -32 states have legalized same sex marriage -18 states ban same sex marriage (Texas is one)

What is the Defendants BOP?

*Defendant has a duty to reasonably accommodate the disabling conditions of workers. However, E'r does not have to place undo hardship on the company.

What goes under the Constitutional Law?

*E'r (gov't searches) -General Rule: Warrantees seizures are illegal -Exception: "special need of the workplace" -Search justified its inception -Scope is reasonable (not excessively intrusive) *4th Amendment

What is the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA? What do you get? Who gets it? Covered E'r? Notice? Upon returning to work?

*FMLA --> Bill Clinton signed onto law 1) What do you get? --> You get 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during any 12 month period 3 reasons to take leave --> 1) Due to birth/adoption of E'ees child 2) To care for E'ees spouse, child or parent with serious health condition 3) Because of a serious health condition that renders E'ee unable to perform functions of job *Most E'ers often paid/sick leave. Some E'ers make sure you can use paid leave sometimes so you won't be unfair to employer. *2) Who gets it? -A male or female employee -Employed by a covered employer for at least 12 months and worked at least 1250 hours during proceeding 12 month period *3) Covered E'r: Employer employing 50 or more Employees @ a time leave is requested. *4) Notice: Although FMLA doesn't say it, the department of Labor says that E'ee must give E'r 30 days notice if leave i.e. foreseeable or "as soon as practicable" if it is not foreseeable. If take intermittently, notice only has to be given once. *5) Upon Returning to Work: E'ee who returns to is/her position is entitled to his/ her job back or to a position with equivalent benefits that had accrued prior to the leave or gaining any seniority while on leave. There are KEY E'ee NOTE: (Top 10% exemptions to coverage which mean key employees are not always entitled to position after leave)

What were the things that we talked about in class when it came to the case of Lozano v. City of Hazleton?

*IRA set of laws don't violate because of their interest

FAMILY FRIENDLY POLICIES: What was the Pregnancy discrimination Act of 1978?

*Prohibits discrimination in employment based on pregnancy, child birth, and related medical conditions. -This prohibits from discriminating against/treating pregnant people different from other workers based on these things -This doesn't give a woman time off after having the baby or protect her job -Doesn't require E'ers to provide more to pregnant workers, just requires that you don't treat them differently than anyone else. -Not affirmative action law: Don't have to provide benefit to pregnant women that they don't give to everyone else.

What happened in the case of EEOC v. Sage Realty?

*Sage Realty requires lady to dress provocatively at secretary desk. People would come by and flirts/ bother her. She sued for hostile working. They contributed to this environment so they are therefore liable. She had tried to object and address to this and got fed up and fired.

What did we discuss in class about the case of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton?

*She did not properly complain. As bad the work environment is THAT'S important. *This case lists factors under Hostile Working under the "affirmative defense" IN THE CASE: *An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. *When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by preponderance of the evidence. The defense compromises two necessary elements: 1) That the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and 2) That the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avid harm otherwise. *NO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS AVAILABLE, HOWEVER, WHEN THE SUPERVISOR'S HARASSMENT CULMINATES IN A TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION, SUCH AS DISCHARGE, DEMOTION, OR UNDESIRABLE REASSIGNMENT.

SURVEILLANCE AT WORK: pg. 96-98. Employers want to curb habits driving up health care costs. What else does the book say about this?

*Some employers find that penalties work better than rewards *Sometimes an E'r will make a test for nicotine or health or family history or whatever mandatory or there will be financial consequences or it will cause the employee to be fired. *Former ACLU president Ira Glasser has said: "If an employee believes your capacity to take care of yourself is in his interest, then you become like a piece of equipment. He gets to lock it up at night and control the temperature and make sure dust doesn't get into the machine, because what happens when it's not working affects how long it's going to last."

LIFE STYLE CONTROLS: Some states pass laws making it illegal to fire for smoking off duty, how many sates hate statute that make it illegal to fire for off duty smoking?

*Some states pass laws making it illegal to fire for smoking off-duty--> 28 states have statute that make it illegal to fire for off duty smoking. (Virginia, New York.)

What is "an impairment that is episodic or in remission?

-Epilepsy, asthma, things that come and go in episodes (cancers) -If they come and go you're not limited all the time -The question is whether the impairment would substantially limit the individual when such impairment is active. However, remember the plaintiff must be qualified to the job. EX) Public school teacher. Is she disabled? They say no because they can't accommodate her.

What happened in the Ellison v. Brady case?

-Gray is a co worker and has been writing Ellison letters and asks her to lunch and she agrees not knowing that it was just going to be a one on one thing. -He writes her a note after she's been rejecting him and blowing him off saying he's been crying and really upset about it. She reports this to her supervisors and her supervisor think that it is sexual harassment but lets Ellison talk her out of doing something about it/ the right thing because Ellison didn't think that this was sexual harassment. -He soon writes her a real creepy letter and gets moved -She can win this case. Her supervisor Bonnie let her E'ee talk her out of doing the right thing.

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK: Brinkley v. Harbour Rec. Ctr

-No pay discrimination going on here. When an E'ee can prove one of these exceptions then the E'er wins Kathy v. Umbarger?

What goes under the Tort Law Intrusion?

-Obnoxiousness of means used to intrude -Reason for intrusion -Balancing E'rs need to know against E'ees right to privacy -E'r: private tort and public tort

WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS: Under the "Course of Employment" what happened during the Carillo v. Liberty Northwest Ins. case and whats the rule that goes along with this?

-Office worker that's on a 15 minute authorized payed break. Worker walks across street to get a gift for a friend and gets hit by the car. Sues for benefits and gets them because she's in the scope and course of employment.

What did we discuss in class about Webb. v. City of Philadelphia?

-There are no accommodations for her religion because it's important for people such as police officers working for the city to be impartial and not to show preference - Burden of proof, E'rs burden of proof -Kelly Case --> Not disc. and same thing being enforced -Fraternal vs. Police in this case

What 3 things fall under Employer Liability for Co-Worker Sexual Harassment?

-This can't be QPQ because coworkers don't have the ability to hire and fire *1) All 4 parts to Plantiffs BOP under HWE Plaintiffs BOP a) Plaintiff belongs to a protected class b) Plaintiff is subject to unwelcome harassment c) Harassment is based on sex- occurred b/c of sex and is not happening to members of the opposite sex d) Harassment affected a "term, condition, or privilege of employment" - harassment alters the conditions of employment. (4 factors.) *2) Employer know or should've known about the harassment *3) Failed to take prompt reasonable corrective action

What did we discuss in class about the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc?

-This has a procedural question on your standing -If your harass or is the same sex as the one they are harassing, does that really matter (the gender) of the attacker? -Would a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position believe this set of circumstances that this harassment?(taking the same sex of the attacker out of it.) -Harassment is a form of discrimination

What happened in the case of "Waitresses v. Hooters Restaurants"?

-This is about a group of waitresses saying customers are sexually harassing them. Take their outfits into mind. Is this harassment, should hooters be responsible? **Assumption of the risk: Hooters has always had waitresses dress the way that they dress -Hooters waitresses could've assumed that this could be a risk of being an employee of a restaurant that has provocative uniform attire for their waitresses -If you assume the risk, is it sexual harassment? -There's a sex appeal restaurant industry -There is a line between something that's acceptable/ not acceptable -This never went to court, but there was a new hands off policy that hooters put into action and they hired bouncers to help deal with situations with employees bothering the waitresses in this way. -Preventative actions -Training/ plans in place in case something does happen

What did we discuss about the case of Bryant v. Livigni during class?

-Throwing milk crate incident --> he was promoted after this -Throwing 13 year old son against bed post and broke collar bone of boy --> The only reason employer knew this was because he was telling his friends that were managers and therefore they should've fired him. E'ee=manager 1) He was required to check on store ( is in course of scope of employment) and they didn't mention he was drunk. 2) Did the Employer know this guy was a threat and fail to do anything about it? *** Ist set of facts gives rise under both theories. (Discuss both the Negligent Hiring and the Negligent Retention theories on the test)

What are "Major Life Activities"?

-Walking, breathing, and talking -Statute does list out all our major body functions -An impairment with one of these activities would be a major life activity

Brinkley v. Harbour Rec. Ctr: Book Question 5 5) Fewer than 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs were women although they made up 36 percent of Business School students in 2012. Women held only 16.6 percent of board of director seats of fortune 500 companies, with women of color holding far fewer (3.3 percent) of those seats. Throughout 2013, the European Union debated a measure that would require 40 percent of a company's directors be women. (a) What are the props and cons of this approach? (b) Do you think the United States should adopt a similar rule? (c) Research: Has the proposal been adopted by the EU?

-What she mentioned in class from this question was that women of color is even less. This makes it seem like women are still being discriminated against.

Case Brief for Fisher v. University of Texas

...

Case Brief for Lozano v. City of Hazleton

...

Case Brief for Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.

...

Lozano v. City of Hazleton: Book question 1) Although plaintiffs lost their equal protection argument, they won their case on other grounds. The trial court found that the Hazeleton ordinance was invalid because it was preempted by federal immigration law. That holding was affirmed on appeal, 620 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2010). Who are the stakeholders in the Hazleton immigration debate? How does Hazleton ordinance impact them? If you had been on Hazleton's City Council, how would you have voted? Why?

...

SURVEILLANCE AT WORK: Why are employers interested in genetic information of their employees? Or how is employee's genetic information relevant to a job or work related benefits/policies?

...

What is the definition of "disability"?

1) Any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity (MLA); 2) Having a record of such impairment OR 3) Being regarded by others as having such impairment

CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS: What are the three age groups this labor provision is divided into?

1) Children under the age of 14 2) Children aged 14 and 15 3) Children aged 16-18

CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS: What are the work restrictions that go along with children under the age of 14?

1) Children under the age of 14: Restricted from most types of work

***NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES: What are the two things that classify Negligent Hiring?

1) Employer knew or should've known the job applicant would create an undo risk of harm to others in doing their job AND 2) Employer could've reasonably foreseen injury to a 3rd party. note: Hiring someone with a criminal history doesn't make you negligent. Arrests don't mean anything.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION: Under Voluntary Quits: What are the exceptions?

1) Exceptions: a) VTP (Voluntary Termination Plan) --> early retirement plan (still eligible for unemployment) b) Quit for good cause

EQUAL PROTECTION: Cases--> 1) Gratz v. Bollinger (US 2003), what was the background to this case?

1) Gratz v. Bollinger (US 2003) Background: This case involves the admissions policy or the University of Michigan, College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA). The LSA allowed race to be taken into account in its admissions policies in two specific ways. First, admissions counselors had discretion to "flag" applicants based on certain qualities - including race - to keep applicants below the intial threshold in the review pool for further consideration. Second, in calculating an applicant's "selection index score" - a combination of high school GPA and SAT scores - certain applicants could be given additional points: 6 for geographic factors; 4 for alumni relationship; 3 for outstanding essays; 5 for leadership and service skills; and 20 for athletic talent, socioeconomic status or minority racial status.

E'r liability for torts of employees: Under the Doctrine of Respondent Superior, what two things is the employer liable for? (the wrongs of)

1) If you see an Employee commit the tort 2) If the tort is committed within the course and scope of employment

E'r liability for torts of employees: Under the Doctrine of Respondent Superior, what are the 3 justifications for the doctrine?

1) The Employer (his business) should be responsible for undertaking of his business 2) Incentive for Employer to be more careful in their Employment selection 3) Employer should've had liability insurance

What falls under the 14 Amendment to the US Constitution?

14TH AMENDMENT TO US CONSTITUTION: *Government must be acting to treat people in similar situations unequally *If based on gender - intermediate scrutiny test must be passed for gov to keep their rule/law Barnes v. City of Cin. *If race/religion/privacy - strict scrutiny test must be passed for gov to keep their rule/law Gratz v. Bollinger, Grutter v. Bollinger, Webb v. City of Philad. *If Social Issues - rational basis test

CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS: What are the restrictions that go along with the children aged 14 and 15?

2) Allowed to work in Non-hazardous occupations (wouldn't want them to be in meat packing plant, things they aren't ready for). Aren't getting hired because there's limits on the number of hours/day and days/week they can work)

CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS: What are the restrictions that go along with the Children aged 16-18?

3) Children aged 16-18: When workers turn 16, there are no restrictions they just can't work in hazardous locations.

What were your notes over the case of Bryant v. Livigni after rereading the case?

After rereading notes: Mark Livigni was manager of the National Super Markets Incc Store in Cahokia, Illinois. After drinking alcoholic beverages one evening, he stopped by the store to check the operation when he observed a ten-year-old boy unacceptable behvaior outside the store. Livigni chased the boy to a car, where he then pulled a four-year-old child named Farris Bryant from the car and threw him through the air. A multicound lawsuit was brought against National and Livigni. A verdict was rendered against National for $20,000 on a respondeat superior theory of the battery of Farris Bryant. A verdict was also rendered against National for $150,000 in negligent retention of Livigni and for $115,000 punitive damages for willful and wanton retention. On March 18, 1987 while off duty, Livigni dropped by the Cahokia National store. As manager, he was authorzed to check and supervise the operation of the store, even during off-duty hours. He was intoxicated at the time of his visit, which was a violation of National rules. He observed a young man urinating and he hollered at him and followed him to a car where he threw a child though the air. Farris, the child, was taken to Centreville Township Hospital's emergency room for medical treatment. He was released from all medical treatment approximantely a month after the battery. During the Trial, a supervisor testified that during the 17 years of Livignis tenure with national, he had been a good employee. He claimed there weren't violent related problems besides one incident that Livigni threw an empty milk crate which stuck a coworker. Evidence was offeed of two batteries committed by Livigni prior to his attack of Farris. One was of Livigni throwing an empty milk crate at an employee striking him on the arm and necessitating medical treatment. A workers compensation claim was filed against National by the injured employee but was resolved a short time after. The second battery occured in 1985 when Livigni, while disciplining his 13 year old son, threw the boy into a bed causing the boy to sustain a broken collar bone. Livigni testified at the trial that he had not told any of his supervisors at National about the battery of his son. He admitted to telling employees of equal or lesser positions than himself about the battery. National first admits that Livigni told employees of equal or lesser rank within the corporation about the battery involving his son. However, it claims that this is insufficient notice to the corporation. It argues that the people Livigni told were his "friends" and that as mere "coworkers" of equal or subordinate position no notice could be legally imputed to National. The court disagreed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Pedrick) we believe that a reasonable jury could have concluded that the information concerning the battery of Livigni's son learned by these coworkers was within the scope of their authority to act upon. In such a case, their knowledge is chargeable to National.. Next that the circuit court should have directed a verdict in its favor or granted a judgement n.o.v. on the plaintiff's punitive damages claim. Nationals retention of Mark Livigni

SURVEILLANCE AT WORK: Genetic testing--> what is genetic information?

Any information that reveals a genetic deposition (example disease) and this testing could prove you have a disease.

(CRA Title VII)***RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN: What are the four parts to the application of race?

Application of race: a) Whites b) Blacks c) Native Americans d) Asian Specific *Hispanics are identified as racial groups of "whites" EG: US v. Melrose and Elwood Parks

***THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964: TITLE VII, what is the background to this?

Background: More to this statute than the employer title. Was all about equality and stopping discrimination.

Brief for Bryant v. Livigni

Bryant v. Livigni (course pack) Facts: On March 18, 1978 Livigni was checking and supervising the operation of the Cahokia National Store whom he was the manager of even though he was technically off duty. At the time, Livigni was intoxicated. Livigni witnessed a young man urinating on the store wall outside. Livigni chased the boy to a car, where he then pulled a four-year-old child named Farris Bryant from the car and threw him through the air. Farris was taken to Centreville Township Hospital's emergency room for medical treatment. He was released from all medical treatment approximately one month after the battery. Issue: 1) Was there respondeat superior liability in this case? 2) Should National have reasonably known about Livigni's "violent related" problems? Decision: The principle issue is not the respondeat superior, although that may also be implicated. Yes, National should have known about Livigni's violent related problems. A reasonable jury could have concluded that the information concerning the battery of Livigni's son, learned by the coworkers beforehand, was within the scope of their authority to act upon. Conclusion: Livigni's supervisor testified that during his 17 year tenure with National that he had been a good employee. Evidence was offered of two batteries committed by Livigni prior to his attack of Farris. According to National, there was no evidence that it knew or had reason to know that Livigni was anything other an "an excellent store manager, fit for his position." National points to the GENERAL RULE relying upon Campen v. Executive House Hotel: To impute knowledge of this occurrence to National a showing was required that an agent or employee of National had notice or knowledge of the incident and that knowledge concerned a matter within the scope of the agent's authority. According to National, this knowledge was lacking. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Pedrick), we believe that a reasonable jury could have concluded that the information concerning the battery of Livigni's son, learned by these coworkers, was within the scope of their authority to act upon. In such case, their knowledge is chargeable to National. Next, National claims that the circuit court could have directed a verdict in its favor or granted a judgment on the plaintiff's punitive damages claim. This count alleged that National's retention of Mark Livigni as a management employee constituted willful and wanton misconduct. The Restatement of Torts, Section 909 at 476 states: "Punitive damages can properly be awarded against a master or other principal because of an act by an agent if, but only if the agent was unfit and the principal or managerial agent was reckless in.. retaining him." This didn't seek to impose liability, so the court viewed the case of Easley v. Apollo Detective Agency. Easley recognized that it is settled law that a cause of action exists in Illinois for negligent hiring of an employee, and that if the defendant's conduct could properly be characterized as willful and wanton then punitive damages are recoverable. The principle at issue is not respondeat superior, although that may also be implicated. Rather, the cause of action is premised upon the wrongful conduct of the employer itself. It is sufficient if his actions were prompted only in part by a purpose to protect store property or further the employers business. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court was affirmed.

Burlington Industries Case Brief

Burlington Industries v. Ellerth Supreme Court of the United States, 524. U.S. 742 Facts: Kimberly Ellerth quit her job after 15 months because of consecutive alleged assults that were made by a supervisor of hers named Ted Slowik. Slowik had the rights to hire, fire, and promote employees but was not a policymaker. Ellerth told the court that on three different accounts Slowik made comments that could be interpreted as threats to her tangible job benefits. All of the advances made by Slowik were denied by Ellerth. Ellerth alleged that Burlington had engaged in sexual harassment and she was constructively discharged in violation under Title VII. Issue: Did Burlington Industries cause Ellerth constructive discharge in violation under Title VII? Who was held liable for these cases of alleged sexual assault? Decision: Burlington Industries did not cause constructive discharge to Ellerth in violation under Title VII. She failed to practice protocol and also she had neither submitted to the sexual advances nor suffered tangible effects because of the advances. Burlington Industries was held liable for these cases of alleged sexual assault. Reasoning: Section 703(a) of Title VII forbids: "an employer—(1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's...sex." The court defined quid pro quo as cases based on threats that are carried out and that they are distinct from bothersome attentions or sexual remarks that are sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The terms "quid pro quo" and "hostile work environment" don't appear in the text under Title VII. The court questioned what type of harassment occurred because that would help determine liability. "Whether a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment may be stated under Title VII... where the plaintiff employee has neither submitted to the sexual advances of the alleged harasser nor suffered any tangible effects on the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment as a consequence of a refusal to submit to those advances?" The court held that for any sexual harassment preceding the employment decision to be actionable, however, the conduct must be severe or pervasive. The court turned to whether the employer has vicarious liability. The court found that under agecy law principles such a master is responsible for the torts of his employees committed within the scope of employment. "If the plaintiff can show that she suffered an economic injury from her supervisor's actions, the employer becomes strictly liable without any further showing..." The court held that an employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate authority over the employee. The defense compromises to things: 1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and 2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. Burlington Industries did not cause constructive discharge to Ellerth in violation under Title VII. She failed to practice protocol and also she had neither submitted to the sexual advances nor suffered tangible effects because of the advances. Burlington Industries was held liable for these cases of alleged sexual assault.

Electronic Surveillance: The Debate (Book pg. 90-92)--> How do Businesses justify electronic surveillance?

Businesses justify electronic surveillance in a number of ways: 1) It enables supervisors to observe and improve employee performance 2) It both measures and encourages efficiency 3) It enhances the completeness and fairness of personal evaluations 4) It can uncover employee disloyalty, which can take the form of stealing tangible items, such as products and supplies, or intangibles, such as trade and secrets 5) It can flag racially or sexually harassing e-messages *Employees claim that electronic monitoring puts them under dehumanizing pressure with computers instead of people judging their performance. Because computers measure quantity better than quality, employees who work fast might look better than those who work best. **1993 Rutgers University study found that employees subjected to video surveillance were less able to solve complex problems.

What falls under the Civil Rights Act (Title VII/ Title IX, etc)?

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (TITLE VII/TITLE IX, etc: *Employers with 15 or more employees; fed. gov.; state and local gov. etc. *Protected classes of race, color, national origin, religion and sex are protected from unlawful discrimination in the areas of employment, voting, access to public accommodations, educational opportunities and activities, etc. *Employment: all of our sexual harassment cases, Barnes v. City of Cin., Oiler v. Winn Dixie, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., Webb v. City of Philad.

Case Brief over the case City of Ontario, California v. Quon

City of Ontario, California v. Quon Supreme Court of the United States 2010 Facts: On October 2001, The City acquired 20 pagers that were capable of sending and receiving messages. After they acquired these pagers, they had a "Computer Policy" that applied to all the employees. The computer policy did not apply in face to text messaging. At a staff meeting in April of 2008, Lieutenant Steven Duke told officers that messages that are sent on the pagers were considered "email messages". Within the first few billing cycles, Quon exceeded his monthly quota for text messages character allotment. He continued to exceed his monthly limit over the following months as well. Duke suggested that Quon could reimburse the City for the overage fee rather than have Duke audit the messages so Quon took him up on that. Duke soon grew tired of "being a bill collector". Chief Scharf decided to determine whether the existing character limit was too low or f the overages were for personal messages. They received transcripts of the messages and after reviewing them, many of his messages were not work related and were sexually explicit. They came to figure out through the report of these transcripts that on a regular work day Quon would send or receive 28 messages and only 3 were work related. After this they concluded that Quon had violated OPD rules and he was disciplined. Sergeant Quon challenged this search as violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Issue: Was the search to obtain a transcript of Quon's texting off of his work related pager reasonable? Did this search violate Quon's fourth Amendment rights? Decision: The court decided that the search to review the transcripts of Quon's texting was reasonable because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and was not excessive in scope. In conclusion, the court decided that Quon's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. Reasoning: The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." A worker does not lose Fourth Amendment rights because they work for the government instead of a private employer. The court reviewed a note from one Electronic Frontier Foundation, that many employers expect or at least tolerate personal use of such equipment by employees because it often increases worker efficiency. The court say that employer policies concerning communications will of course shape the reasonable expectations of their employees, especially to the extent that such policies are clearly communicated. Then turning to the actual case, the court had to decide whether this search was a reasonable one. Under the O'Conner approach, the investigation of a warrantless search is reasonable if it is justified by inception. The search was justified at its inception because there were "reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search was necessary for a non-investigatory work-related purpose." As for the scope of the search, reviewing the transcripts was reasonable because it was efficient and expedient way to determine whether Quon's overages were the result of work-related messaging or personal use. Although Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his messages, it would not have been reasonable for Quon to conclude that his messages were likely to entail an analysis of his on-the job communications and that that analysis might include scrutiny. he court decided that the search to review the transcripts of Quon's texting was reasonable because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and was not excessive in scope. In conclusion, the court decided that Quon's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated

What happened in the Case of Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc.?

Class notes: The plaintiff Studebaker wins. The Employer is Nettie's Flowers. The worker is an employee named Ferry. Question: Was the trip Ferry was taking to the Pawn shop classified as personal business? -Since this was technically a slight detour, it was not exclusively for his business. -You don't have to be exclusively be doing employers business to be "course and scope of employment". *Frollic: left masters business and doing your own thing. *Independent Contractor: Hired to do something but once you're done then you can work for someone else. -There was a master/servant relationship Notes over this case after rereading it: Judith Studebaker was injured when a van driven by James Ferry collided with her vehicle. She brought action against Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc. (Nettie's), on a respondeat superior theory in the belief that Ferry was Nettie's employee at the time of the accident. Nettie's defended that Ferry was an independent contractor and not an employee. The judgement in favor of Studebaker was for $125,000. The day of the accident Ferry conducted his normal routine. He had a morning stop he normally made at 9:30 am. Ferry made his normal morning run and then his mid-day stop at the downtown shop at about 11:00A.M. There was nothing for him to transport to the Grand Avenue shop. After Ferry left the downtown shop, he stopped at a pawn shop to conduct personal business. He then proceeded to the Grand Avenue shop to prepare for his afternoon run. On the way to the Grand Avenue shop, at app. 11:45 AM Ferrys can collided with plaintiffs automobile. -Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer is liable for those negligent acts of emissions of his employee which are committed within the scope of his employment. -Liability based on respondeat superior requires some evidence that a master-servant relationship existed between the parties. *The test to determine if respondeat superior applies to a tort is whether the person sought to be charged as master had the right or power to control and direct the physical conduct of the other in the performance of the act. If there was no right to control there is no liability; for those rendering services but retaining control over their own movements are not servants.. The master servant relationship arises when the person charged as master has the right to direct the method by which the master's service is performed. An additional inquiry is whether the person sought to be charged as the servant was engaged in the prosecution of his master's business and not simply whether the accident occurred during the time of employment. Whether a party is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior depends on the facts and circumstances in evidence in each particular case and no single test is conclusive of the issue of the party's interest in the activity and his right of control.

In "City of Ontario, California v. Quon" what are the constitutional rights to privacy and when is seating not unreasonable?

Constitutional Rights to Privacy -4th Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures Search is not unreasonable - Justified at its inception -Measured adopted reasonable relation to the search and not excessively intrusive.

What are "corrective measures"?

Corrective Measures: Something they take to lessen their burden *Whether plaintiff fits a definition of disability is determined without regard to corrective measures EXCEPTION: Glasses and contact lenses for ordinary vision impairments -If an airline pilot for example doesn't fit undeveloped standards this doesn't make them disabled.

Under Employer Practices under GINA, what are the two parts to the definition for discrimination based on genetic information?

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENETIC INFORMATION -It shall be unlawful employment practice for any employer--> a) To fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge, any employee or otherwise to discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of genetic information with respect to the employee or b) to limit, segregate, or classify employees.. in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the employee..., because of genetic information with respect to the employee.

DEVELOPING CASE LAW: An Employer's Liability for Harassment by Supervisors (not in book). What are the two cases that go along with this that we discussed in class?

Developing Case Law: An Employer's Liability for Harassment by Supervisors *Barnes v. Castle: Barnes was not threatened by castle to be fired if she didn't have sex with her supervisor, Castle. She refused, was fired, then brought it to court. *Bundy v. Jackson: Bundy is in the workplace that is mistreating sexually. She quit because of it and brought it to court.

(CRA Title VII)***THEORIES OF DISCRIMINATION: What falls under Disparate Impact? What is the plaintiffs BOP? What happens then the burden shifts to the E'r?

Disparate Impact (Unintentional) Plaintiff BOP: 1) E'r has a facially neutral policy 2) Policy is neutrally applied 3) Application of policy has a significant adverse impact on a protected class Burden shifts to E'r: Defendents (E'r) BOP: -Defendant tries to valide defense; *Business necessity *Job related reason *Seniority system *BFOQ-Bona Fide--> Known as bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) in US employment law and bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR) in Canadian employment law, there are some selected, few qualities or an attributes that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees: qualities that would constitute discrimination when they are considered in other contexts and thus in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering *Occupational qualification others... -Race and national origin can never be of BFOQ -Really left w/ sex and religion **E'r is not intending to discriminate irrelevant. Therefore lack of intent is NOT a defense. (intent is irrelevant)

(CRA Title VII)***THEORIES OF DISCRIMINATION: What falls under the Disparate Treatment? What is Plaintiff's BOP? What is the plaintiff meets the BOP, what then?

Disparate Treatment: -Plaintiff can have direct evidence of covert (secret, hidden, hushed) treatment OR Plaintiff's BOP: 1) Plaintiff is a member of a protected class 2) Plaintiff was Qualified for job and applied 3) Plaintiff was rejected 4) Employer continued to seek applicants for job and filled with with a person that is not in the protected class -If plaintiff meets BOP, then the defendents BOP: legitimate reason for not hiring plaintiff. -Then burden shifts back to plaintiff to prove that the reason is a sham.

***THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964: TITLE VII, what is the EEOC Grievance Procedure?

EEOC Grievance Procedure: Plaintiff must exhaust EEOC procedures before courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case (doesn't matter what discriminatory law or fed/state statute, you still have to take it to EEOC) Procedures: -worker that claims disc. and files charge of disc. with EEOC. EEOC assigns priority 1st charge, against group based on priority then make the decision. If EEOC chooses to take your case, then they will pay for everything. "Right to Sue" Letter. What proves these procedures have been exhausted. 1) EEOC files case for plaintiff 2) EEOC gives right to sue for plaintiff

(CRA Title VII)***--> RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN: What are the EEOC guideline on English-only workplace rules? (from book pg. 144 gray box)

EEOC Guideline on English Only workplace rules 1) An English only rule that applies at all times is considered a "burdensome term and condition of employment" (in violation of Title VII) and 2) An English- only rule that applies only at certain times does not violate Title VII if the employer can justify the rule by showing business necessity. RATIONALE FOR RULES: 1) English-only policies may "create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation, and intimidation" that could make a "discriminatory environment"; 2) English-only rules adversely impact employees with limited or no English skills... by denying them a privilege enjoyed by Native English Speakers: the opportunity to speak at work; 3) English-only rules create barriers to employment for employees with limited or no English skills; 4) English-only rules prevent bilingual employees whose first language is not English from speaking in their most effective language; and the risk of discipline and termination for violating English-only rules falls disproportionately on bilingual employees as well as persons with limited English skills.

EQUAL PROTECTION: What goes under the 14th Amendment to the US constitution under equal protection?

EQUAL PROTECTION: A) 14thy Amendment to the US Constitution: (and the 5th Amendment) Post Civil war -Black codes: limited rights of newly freed slaves -1st Civil Rights Act 1866--> by congress -Ratified by states in 1858- States may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction its equal protection of the laws.

EQUAL PROTECTION: What is the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution definition under equal protection?

EQUAL PROTECTION: B) Meaning: This means the gov't mistreated similarly situated people in similar manner

EQUAL PROTECTION: What classifies "Standards of Review" under equal protection?

EQUAL PROTECTION: C) Standards of Review: Tests that the court is applying to the circumstance (to determine if treating people differently is justified) -Courts require gov't to pass when a law allegedly violating equal protection is violated.

EQUAL PROTECTION: Under "Standards of Review", what is the Strict Scrutiny Test?

EQUAL PROTECTION: Standards of Review--> I. Strict Scrutiny Test--> Hardest for gov't to pas. *If there is even more than one test that's applicable, push to higher test. *TEST: What gov't has to show is that the law must further a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to further that interest. APPLIED TO: -Fundamental rights -All 1st Amendment Rights -Rights to Privacy -Right to vote -Right to interstate travel OR Suspect classes -Race, national origin, and citizenship

SURVEILLANCE AT WORK: Electronic Surveillance-->Statutes: What is the exception to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA)?

Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) Exception: "Business-Extension Exception"--> Permits employers to monitor E'ees electronic communication in ordinary course of business.

SURVEILLANCE AT WORK: Electronic Surveillance--> Statutes: What is the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986?

Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA): Intentional interception of any wire or electronic communication or any disclosure or use of information obtained by interruption.

SURVEILLANCE AT WORK: Electronic Surveillance--> what are the 2 main factors considered by the courts?

Electronic Surveillance: The Law *2 Main factors considered by the courts: 1) The obnoxiousness of the means used to intrude 2) The reasons for the intrusion

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION: Under the social security act of 1935, who gets it?

Eligibility definition--> can be eligible and still disqualified. An unemployed person who is available for placement for a similar position at comparable pay. HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT? This means you're out there seeking a job at comparable pay. You can prove this by showing applications that you have done and giving the names of the interviews.

What is the definition for "E'er Liability for Sexual Harassment by Non-employees? What are the 3 factors that fall under this?

Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment by Non-employees: *Employees, vendors, deliverers, any 3rd party that enters the workplace is a potential FACTORS: 1) Prove hostile working environment 2) E'r know or should've known about hostile working environment 3)E'r failed to take reasonable measures to prevent (need to have reasonable barrier between workers and non workers)

EMPLOYERS SANCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER IRCA: Under employers sanctions, what two things classify this as illegal?

Employer Sanctions: What is illegal? a) Hire, recruit, or refer as a fee (referral agency and pay more as you go) to "unauthorized aliens/ "undocumented workers" b)Cannot employ an alien (undocumented worker) knowing he is or has become unauthorized with respect of employment

EMPLOYERS SANCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER IRCA: Under Employers Sanction, what is a penalty?

Employer Sanctions: What is the penalty? --> Go w/ the ones she's giving not the textbook a) Civil --> first offense: up to $2,200 per individual subsequent offenses:up to $11,000 per individual b) Criminal--> pattern and practice (a lot of illegals at one place or multiple instances) Up to $3,000 per individual and jail for 10 years

***NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES: What classifies Negligent Retention?

Employer knew or should've known this employee was a risk and didn't get rid of them.

*THE SUPREME COURT'S CURRENT APPLICATION: What is the employers liability under HWE?

Employers liability under HWE: *Is still vicariously liable for HWE in the workplace. But has an affirmative defense. HWE EMPLOYER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Employer can escape liability by showing: 1) E'r used reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct behavior; and 2) E'ee/ vcictim unreasonably failed to take advantage of the corrective opportunities offered by E'r.

***THE SUPREME COUR'TS CURRENT APPLICATION: What is the employers liability under Quid Pro Quo?

Employers liability under QPQ: *Defendant (Employer) is vicariously liable for the actions of their supervisors/ managers AND strictly liable for the presence of QPQ in the workplace.

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK: What is the Equal Pay Act of 1963/ Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?

Equal Pay Act of 1963 and 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): -Prohibits discrimination or against E'ees of one sex by paying lower wages than to E'ees of the opposite sex for equal work in the same establishment on jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed under similar working conditions.

***Under the BILL OF RIGHTS: What is the 9th amendment?

Establishes that the people have rights in addition to those specified in the Constitution.

Under the BILL OF RIGHTS: What is the 10th amendment?

Establishes that those powers neither delegated to the federal government nor denied to the states are reserved to the states and to the people.

Exclusions from Coverage: These are situations in question where individuals are excluded

Exclusions from Coverage: Situations in ? where the individuals are excluded 1) Currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs 2) Homosexuality/ bisexuality 3) Transvestism/ transsexualism 4) Pedophilia (abuse children)/ Exhibition (flashers) 5) Compulsive gambling 6) Kleptomania (taking things that don't belong to them) 7. Pyromania (setting things on fire)

LAWS REGULATING WAGES AND HOURS: FLSA, what three things are established under this law and what are their descriptions?

Fair Labor standards Act (FLSA) 1) Establishes minimum wages: Current minimum wage is $7.25. Know what your rights are. 2) 40 hours/week limit: employer >40 hours, then gets time and a half 3) Child labor laws: Children belong in school and will be better in society if they're in school

Case brief for Faragher v. City of Boca Raton

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton Supreme Court of the United States Facts: During a 5 year period, Terry repeatedly touched the bodies of female employees without invitation, would put his arm around Faragher with his hand on her behind and also made motions on a different female lifeguard that were made in motion of sexual stimulation. During interviews that Terry gave to female employees he would inform them that the females at the work place would have sex with the male counterparts and he wanted to know if they would do the same. A different Lieutenant/Captain Silverman behaved in similar ways. He tackled Faragher one time and told her that if she didn't have a physical characteristic that he found unattractive he would have sex with her readily. Silverman made frequent comments and references when it came to women and sex and told separate female lifeguards on multiple occasions that he would like to engage in sexual activity with them. Faragher spoke on this behavior to a different Lieutenant/Captain named Gordon and didn't regard these conversations as formal complaints but as conversations with someone that she held in high esteem. Gordon responded to these complaints that the "City just doesn't care...". Issue: Was there a violation that occurred under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII? Who was held liable for these actions? Reasoning: Yes, there was a violation that occurred under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII. The employer was held liable for these actions. Decision: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "it hsall be unlawful employment practice for an employer... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The court held that sexual harassment "so severe or pervasive" as to "alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment" violates Title VII. The court made it clear that conduct must be extreme to amount to a change in terms and conditions of employment and the Courts of Appeals have needed this view. When a person with supervisory authority discriminates in the terms and conditions of subordinates' employment, his actions necessarily draw upon his superior position under the people who report to him, or those under them, whereas an employee generally cannot check a supervisor's abusive conduct the same way that she might deal with abuse from a coworker. Under Title VII, " enforcement efforts to recognize the employer's affirmative obligation to prevent violations and give credit here to employers who make reasonable efforts to discharge their duty. Lastly the court set out some guidelines for employer liability. "An employer is subject to vicarious liability to victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by preponderance of the evidence. The defense compromises two necessary elements: 1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and 2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise... No affirmative defense is available however when the supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment." In conclusion there was a violation that occurred under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII and the employer was held liable for these actions.

Definition of Federal Family and Medical Leave Act

Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 1. What do you get? **12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period: a. due to the birth/adoption of employee's child b. to care for employee's spouse, child or parent with serious health condition c. because of a serious health condition that renders employee unable to perform functions of job 2. Who gets it? *a male or female employee *employed by a covered employer for at least 12 mos and worked at least 1,250 hours during the preceding 12 mo period. 3. Covered Employer: Employer employing 50 or more Employees @ time leave is requested. 4. Notice: although FMLA doesn't say it, Dept. of Labor says that employee must give employer 30 days' notice if leave is foreseeable, or "as soon as practicable" if it is not foreseeable. If take intermittently, notice only has to be given once. 5. Upon Returning to Work: Employee who returns to his/her position is entitled to his/her job back or to a position with equivalent benefits, pay, and employment conditions without losing any benefits that had accrued prior to the leave or gaining any seniority while on leave. *NOTE: There are Key Employee (Top 10%) exceptions to coverage which mean key employees are not always entitled to position after leave.

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK: What are the four exceptions that apply under CRA Title VII cases- all types of discrimination and EPA cases?

Four Exceptions (apply under CRA Title VII cases-- all types of discrimination and EPA cases) 1) A seniority system: if workers who have been there longer and 1st in line for promotions/raises. Women with seniority make more than the man without. 2) A merit system: based pay on how well you do your job. 3) A system that: measures earnings by quantity/quality of production; or 4) a differential based on any factor other than sex.

WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS: Under "Course of Employment" what does Gavioch v. Stoh Brewery illustrate?

Gavioch v. Stroh Brewery Co.--> Illustrates how broadly the statues are construed to cover work place injuries. -Alcoholic working for a company gets a disease and sues.

Under SEX DISCRIMINATION, what is the definition of Gender/ Sexual Stereotyping?

Gender/Sexual Stereotyping: Discriminating against an employee because he/she doesn't act sufficiently masculine/feminine or exhibiting traits normally valued in the opposite sex/gender, but disparaged in their own sex/gender. EX) Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (US 1989) - Female CPA applied for partner and was denied. She was described by supervisors and co-workers as "macho", "needing a course in charm school", "masculine" and a "lady using foul language". She wore man styled suits, had short masculine haircut and no make-up or jewelry.

FAMILY FRIENDLY POLICIES: What did we talk about in the General Electric v. Gilbert Case in class?

General Electric v. Gilbert Case (US 1976)--> Pregnancy was excluded under policy and sued. Think about the time, all thing we know today weren't clear. Gilbert loses case and they say its not discrimination. Although, it is. Shows you a need for this statute.

WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS: Halliman v. Los Angeles School District and the rule that goes along with it?

General Rule: Can't sue E'r for mere negligence because of workers compensation laws now 1) Employer commits intentional act/tort (then you are stuck with worker compensation laws) -Student intentionally throws rock at the teachers head and she has seizures after. She sues the school. **The court decides that the student was not an agent o the school and that you are stuck with what you get from worker compensation laws.

WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS: Under "Course of Employment" what are the three generally non compensable?

Generally non-compensable: a) Unpaid Lunch Breaks: Off premises b) "Coming and going"--> If your E'r sends you on a special errand on your way home or to work its exception c) "Special Errand Exception"

Notes we took in class over the case of Umbarger v. Virginia Empmt. Comm.

Good cause: 1) Did the E'ee have a reasonable dispute with the Employer? 2) Did the E'ee take reasonable steps to resolve the dispute?

Case brief for Griggs v. Duke Po. Co.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Supreme Court of the United States Facts: There was a provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for class actions for enforcement of provisions of the Act and this proceeding was brought by a group of incumbent Negro employees against Duke Power Company. All Petitioners were from a power generating facility at the Company's location in Draper, North Carolina. Prior to the effective date of the Civil Rights Act, Duke Power Company was openly discrimatory on the basis of race in the hiring and assigning of employees at its Dan River plant. The company abandoned its policy of restricting Negros to the Labor Department in 1965 and made the completion of high school alongside registered satisfactory scores on two professionally prepared aptitude tests. Negros had been excluded if the incumbent had been employed prior to the time of the new requirement. Issue: Does the adoption of the diploma requirement and test requirements go against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Decision: The adoption of the diploma requirement and test requirements do not go against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job and not the person in abstract. Reasoning: The Civil Rights Act, title VII, the court found that neither standard is shown to be significantly related to successful job performance, both requirements operate to disqualify Negroes at a higher rate than whites, and the jobes in question formerly had been filled only by white employees as part of a long standing practice of giving preference to whites. The court is concerning the meaning of title VII.When concerning this meaning of Title VII, the majority of the court concluded that there was no violation of the act and that there was no showing of discrimination in the adoption of the diploma and tests. The objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII was the achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees. On the record before the court, neither a diploma or test requirements bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of jobs for which it was used. The adoption of the diploma requirement and test requirements do not go against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job and not the person in abstract.

Under the BILL OF RIGHTS: What is the 6th amendment?

Guarantees the accused in a criminal case the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury and with counsel. The accused has the right to cross-examine witnesses against him or her and to solicit testimony from witnesses in his or her favor.

Under the BILL OF RIGHTS: What is the 7th amendment?

Guarantees the right to a trill by jury in a civil case involving at least twenty dollars.

**Under the BILL OF RIGHTS: What is the fifth amendment?

Guarantees the rights to indictment by grand jury, due process of law, and to fair payment when private property is taken for public use; prohibits compulsory self-incrimination and double-jeopardy. (being tried again for an alleged crime for which one has already stood trial.)

***Under the BILL OF RIGHTS: What is the first amendment?

Guarentees the freedoms of religion, speech, and the press and the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the government.

In the example that Mrs. Hailey gave us during class about her Dad firing a lady when she didn't have a certificate to be in charge of equipment she claimed to have, what was the reasoning behind him firing her?

Her dad fired the lady who didn't have the certificate because by her lying and saying that she had taken a class and received this certificate to be eligible and legal to use the equipment she had been using, it was classified as willful wanton substantial disregard for the employers interest. She could have gotten Mrs. Haileys dad in trouble if he had not taken action on this.

Lozano v. City of Hazleton: Book Question 2) In 2007, when the Hazleton case was decided, 41 states adopted some kind of immigration laws. Most were aimed at discouraging undocumented immigrants- by restricting the right to obtain a driver's license or the right to medical and other state aid. But it was Arizona's tough stance, signed into law in April 2010, that revved up the national debate. Face with an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, miles of the desert-border with Mexico, and what it deemed inadequate federal enforcement, Arizona took matters into its own hands. The new law required "aliens" to carry registration documents, empowered state law officials to arrest persons who could be deported, and required law officers to verify the immigration status of anyone violating local law if they reasonably suspected the person was in the state illegally. And-- much like Hazleton-- Arizona went after works. The law made it a misdemeanor for "an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona." Arizonas law was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, which found most of the law to be invalid because it interfered with the operation of federal law. Under the current federal law, only an employer-- not the employee could be held criminally responsible for hiring an unauthorized immigrant. In ruling to overturn the Arizona law, the majority explained that immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, and so must be uniform and established at the federal level. Dissenting Justice Scalia argued, "if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State." United States v. Arizona 132. Should states be permitted to create their own immigration policies?

I think that states shouldn't be disallowed to be able to create their own immigration laws, but the laws that they do create should apply to the federal law. Also, I think that since immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation, it would be more ideal for it to be uniform and established at the federal level so these things aren't affected.

Case question over Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden Inc.: Give your opinion on the ethics of business converting employees to independent contractors to reduce or eliminate costs, such as health and retirement benefits, vacations, overtime, and maintenance and proper insurance of motor vehicles.

I think this could be viewed as unethical to take away E'ees benefits to save money for themselves because the E'ees being changed to the title of "Independent Contractor" should be able to receive these benefits that a person working at a same or similar job is receiving. Although, depending on the situation, it could also be seen as ethical, especially if the person the employer is providing the job to is really in need of the job and not the benefits.

EMPLOYERS SANCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER IRCA: What is IRCA?

IRCA is Immigration Reform and Control Act

What are the differences when it comes to the IRS when classifying a worker as an independent contractor or an employee?

If the worker is an independent contractor: If they have earned over $600, the employer must supply an IRS 1099 for to each contractor stating the amount of money paid the contractor during the year, and must turn in a summary sheet to the IRS. If the employer hires an Employee: The employer must have an IRS employer identification number; pay state and federal unemployment taxes; supply workers compensation insurance; withhold payroll taxes, both federal and state, and submit payroll tax returns monthly or quarterly; and pay Social Security taxes equal to the amount withheld and paid by the employee. The employer may also provide benefits to employees such as vacations, sick days, medical and dental plan, and a retirement plan. Benefits are not provided to independent contractors.

Employee v. Independent Contractor: What is the "Inherently dangerous work" exception?

If work being performed is inherently dangerous then employer is liable.

Electronic Surveillance: The Debate (Book pg. 90-92)

In 1880s, Frederick Taylor invented an approach to industrial efficiency that broke each job into many separate measurable components. He monitored every part of the process, and developed a system that gave managers the ability to track both the speed and intensity of work very closely. In the 20th century Ford Motor Company hired social workers to investigate the employees deservingness of what was then an impressive $5/day wage. What is different about present day workplace oversight is the use of technology that allows workers to be observed secretly and in newly intrusive ways. Also, the rate of electronic monitoring of employees has scaled up dramatically over recent years.Interest in the use of software to track employee activity online is growing. Filtering software is evolving quickly and becoming increasingly sophisticated. These programs can take surreptitious "screen shots" of employee computers; track Web usage; rank individuals according to their rates of traffic to game, joke, pornography, shopping, or job hunting sites; or examine images attached to e-mails for anything that looks like flesh. ex) Spector 360 takes computer activities out of each persons computer and feds that information into a database and provides reports. Allows a company to discover: 1) Which employees spend the most time surfing websites 2) Which employees chat the most 3) Who sends the met e-mails with attachments 4) Who arrives to work late and leaves early 5) What... employees (are) searching for on the Internet **This software product promises "through a first of its kind surveillance-like camera recurring tool" to reveal a "level of detail so precise that you can see what an employee does each and every second."

Under Hostile Environment: How offensive must it be?

In HWE, harassment must affect a term and condition of employment.

Questions for Ascertaining Independent Contractor or Employee Status: Does the employer control the manner and means of accomplishing the work? (A worker who is required to follow the employer's instruction on when, where, and how and with what tools is generally considered an employee.)