What is the legal minimum according to federal law/> HR Management
K’s Barbershop (Kimmingville, PA)
In the Philadelphia suburb of Kimmingville, PA a new business has opened – K’s Barbershop. It is located five doors down from a Hair Cuttery and ten doors down from an upscale beauty salon, but “K” – the owner, Kevin Kane, is feeling optimistic. His business strategy is differentiation, targeting the male market who may miss the old-fashioned barbershops that would give you both a shave and a haircut in a male-dominated environment. Kevin has hopes to make it a chain in the future, but for right now, it is a one-man shop. He has two full-time employees, his two sons, and neither of those sons have an individual contract of employment or a union. The services and products offered are all geared toward men, with packages for grooms and proms specifically for guys. Kevin hopes customers will switch from the other hair cut options to K’s Barbershop.
1. If Kevin targets only male customers and turns female customers away for haircuts, is he violating Title VII?
a. Yes, for gender discrimination
b. Yes, for sexual harassment
c. Yes, for affinity orientation
d. Yes, but the BFOQ defense will work here
e. No
2. Could gender be a BFOQ for the haircutting job if Kevin wants to hire only men?
a. Yes, if Kevin can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the essence of the job is to cut hair
b. Yes, if Kevin can prove with a preponderance of the evidence that the essence of the job is to cut hair
c. Yes, if Kevin can prove by a scintilla of evidence that the essence of the job is to make the atmosphere “manly”
d. No, there is nothing in the haircutting job to suggest a BFOQ for gender
e. No, there is never a BFOQ for gender
3. Kevin’s first hire is a former barber named Vincent, a fifty-year old African-American man known in the area to be an excellent barber. After about three months, Beau (Kevin’s son) decides he doesn’t like Vincent much. Mostly, Beau doesn’t appreciate how Vincent’s high work quality and work ethic make Beau look lazy and not very good at his work. Sooner or later, Beau knows that his dad is going to notice and make a thing about it. Beau wants Vincent gone. He makes up a story and tells his dad he saw Vincent keying in unauthorized discounts for his customers, not telling the customer, and pocketing the extra money for himself. Kevin fires Vincent on the spot. Can Vincent sue K’s Barbershop for wrongful termination?
a. Yes – so long as he can prove the prima facie elements and show that he did nothing wrong
b. No – he should sue his employer, K’s Barbershop, for defamation.
c. Yes – and he should also sue for defamation
d. No – he has no legally valid claim against K’s Barbershop, Kevin, or Beau
e. No – he has no legally valid claim against K’s Barbershop or Kevin but he can sue Beau for defamation.
4. Vincent walks a few doors down and puts in job applications at The Hair Cuttery and the upscale beauty salon. He lists all of his prior employment, including the three months at K’s Barbershop. When The Hair Cuttery manager Laura walks down to check Vincent’s references, Kevin tells her that Vincent gave unauthorized customer discounts and pocketed the extra cash. Laura has been having that exact problem in her store, and until they get a new computer system, the last thing she needs is another employee exhibiting that behavior. She turns Vincent down, and is honest when he asks why. Whom can Vincent sue and for what?
a. Vincent can sue Beau for slander, and that’s it.
b. Vincent can sue Beau and K’s Barbershop for slander
c. Vincent can sue Beau and K’s Barbershop for libel
d. Vincent can sue The Hair Cuttery for failure to hire and tortious interference with business relations
e. Vincent can sue no one on these facts due to the doctrine of employment at will
5. When Vincent gets to the upscale beauty salon, he warns them about the lies that Beau and Kevin have said about him. Beatrice, the feisty owner of the salon, couldn’t care less – she knows her industry is full of people lying about each other all the time. Besides, at her shop, the desk manager handles all the money. She hires Vincent and is impressed with his work. All of Vincent’s previous clients follow him to the store, and Beatrice is thrilled with the increase in customers. Additionally, Vincent is fun to work with. Partly out of legitimate gratitude, and partly just to be snarky, she sends Kevin a Thank You note for the great employee. He gets so mad, he hires away her top facial massage aesthetician and begins offering his own customers facials. Kevin himself pays to buy out the one-year contract that Beatrice had with the facial aesthetician, Hailey, which still had two months to go. Now who can sue whom for what?
a. Beatrice can sue Kevin for tortious interference with contractual relations
b. Vincent can sue Beatrice for defamation for the note she wrote and sent Kevin
c. Hailey can sue Beatrice for breach of contract and wrongful termination
d. Beatrice can sue Kevin and K’s Barbershop for retaliation under Title VII
e. Kevin can sue Beatrice for intentional infliction of emotional distress
6. Beau is so happy his dad fired Vincent, but he isn’t happy that he has all these customers he has to take care of. There are only five employees – him, his brother, two other barbers, and Hailey, the facial aesthetician – and Hailey doesn’t cut hair! He urges his dad to hire another barber, and his dad puts a sign on the window. When three women hair stylists from the Hair Cuttery come to apply, Kevin turns them down flat – he doesn’t even let them fill out applications. He says that hiring any women “barbers” will “kill the man buzz” of having a place to go that is a guy’s place. Is his refusal to hire women legal under federal law?
a. Yup.
b. Nope.
7.Kevin decides to open four other locations and has a total of thirty-five employees in all of them. Now that his dad is juggling all these different locations, Beau is running the original store. He hires an African-American barber, Samuel, in order to entice more African-American customers, and it actually works because Samuel has a large book of business, brings a lot of clients with him, and attracts lots of new customers because he is so popular. If Beau turned down three other African-American barbers to hire Samuel, could those rejected applicant-barbers prevail on a race discrimination claim against the barbershop?
a. No.
b. Yes, if they can show they were each more qualified than Samuel.
c. Yes, if they can show they were ready, able, and willing to do the job.
d. Yes, if they can show that customers don’t care what race their barber is
e. Yes, but only as individual actions – no class action is allowed for race claims.
8. If Samuel gets hurt at work cutting a customer’s hair with a defective pair of scissors that Kevin gave him, what tort claim can he successfully bring against his employer, K’s Barbershop?
a. A regular tort claim for negligent harm
b. A regular tort claim for reckless harm
c. A wrongful scissor product liability claim
d. None
9. Remember from Question 7, Kevin opened other locations and wants to grow the business. If Kevin wanted to attract more Latino customers, he might go so far as to require any barber applicants to have a following of at least thirty Latino customers that the new barber would then bring to the barbershop. Would this be likely to give rise to successful disparate treatment claims for those barbers not hired?
a. Yes; that’s classic disparate treatment
b. No; but it might result in a disparate impact claim
10. Kevin wants only manly men working at the barbershop as barbers – it’s a marketing, macho thing. He requires all barbers to be able to do twenty pull ups and twenty push ups as a condition of employment. Luckily for the barbers, they don’t need anywhere that kind of arm strength in their jobs! Is this likely to be held up as legal if challenged?
a. Yes; employment at will
b. Yes; same requirement for all applicants
c. No, disparate treatment
d. No, disparate impact
e. Yes, disparate impact but a valid and reliable test of job performance
Packa Pharma (Missoula, Montana)
Packa Pharma is a large, growing company located in Missoula, Montana. It is a warehouse packing facility for mail order drugs, processing hundreds of thousands of prescriptions for individuals all over the United States for delivery every month via overnight parcel service. Packa Pharma offers bulk drug prices, accepts most insurances, and also provides special services for customers such as drug-interaction checks and special packaging by time-of-day or special drug instructions as ordered by the doctor for the patient. This is a big help to seniors who take a variety of medicines at different times with different requirements, as well as their caregivers.
Packa Pharma employs five hundred full-time and two hundred part-time workers. They are an equal opportunity employer, but they make special efforts to recruit from The Crow Tribe of Montana. (For purposes of these questions, please apply state and federal law but assume that local/municipal and tribal law do not change your analysis.) There is no union, and no one has an individual contract of employment.You have been hired to work in the HR Department, and your first task is reviewing the files of those terminated involuntarily and those not hired.
11. Michelle, an African-American woman, has gone to HR numerous times to get help with her supervisor. She said that her supervisor kept giving better training and development opportunities to other coworkers on her team, her supervisor didn’t seem to like her, and the top level work assignments were never assigned to her because her supervisor said she “wasn’t ready” for them. HR did an investigation, but it found no discriminatory concerns. First, Michelle’s coworkers were both men and women, so gender discrimination wasn’t an issue. Although Michelle’s supervisor was a white woman, many of Michelle’s coworkers who were given the better assignments were African-American. She was fired for excessive absences six months later. Accordingly, the case file was closed. Should it have been?
a. Yes, as there is no race discrimination or gender discrimination prima facie case possible
b. No, there is still a possible race discrimination prima facie case
c. No, there is still a possible gender discrimination prima facie case
d. No, there are other unexplored bases for illegal discrimination
e. Yes, because the doctrine of employment at will protects management here in case they missed something
12. You notice that about half of the women who apply to Packa Pharma for packer positions are hired, but only 25% of women who apply for foreman positions are hired. Similarly, about 45% of men who apply for packer positions are hired, but almost 90% of men who apply for foreman positions are hired. Does this concern you?
a. Yes, it seems like there might be some intentional bias going on
b. Yes, it seems like there might be a selection mechanism illegally favoring men for foreman positions
c. Yes, possibly for both of the above reasons
d. No, neither of the above are concerns as there is no 4/5ths violation
13. Remember the hiring numbers you were given for the foreman position in the previous question. Upon further investigation, you find that all applicants for the foreman position are required to climb a ladder to the top shelf of the warehouse shelves in the event of a forklift failure. (There are twenty available forklifts, and they have never all failed at once.) Is this an illegal discriminatory policy?
a. No, because the doctrine of employment at will does not apply
b. No, because it is applied to everyone who applies equally – regardless of protected class status
c. Yes, because it rarely happens that a forklift fails.
d. Yes, given the hiring outcomes between men and women for this position and the lack of job-relatedness of the requirement.
e. Yes, but only if it can be shown to be designed to intentionally discriminate against a particular protected class.
14. Packa Pharma requires all applicants to memorize and recite their mission statement before getting hired. This requirement alone results in the denial of employment to hundreds of qualified workers a year – probably because their mission statement is five paragraphs long. It is completely unrelated to any specific job, but Packa Pharma wants all employees to be able to remember and relate to their mission statement. You sigh. Is this legal?
a. Yes, it is legal, but kind of stupid because they are losing lots of good applicants
b. No, it is not legal because it is not job-related to any of the particular jobs at Packa Pharma
c. Maybe; it depends on the experienced protected class hiring ratios, but it is still kind of stupid
d. Maybe; it depends on if the company has proof that this isn’t intended to discriminate against protected classes
e. Yes, it is legal under the doctrine of employment at will.
15. There is one current discrimination suit against Packa Pharma in the discovery phase right now. Sharon, a junior employee in marketing, is alleging that she was denied a promotion based on gender. She says that Sofia, also a junior employee in marketing, got the promotion instead of her because Sofia always dresses up, flirts with the men in the department, flatters all the bosses, and acts as if she does a lot of good work. Sharon says in reality, Sofia is less qualified at the job and just good at office politics. Sharon can show she was more qualified than Sofia for the promotion, that she is a woman, and that she didn’t get the promotion. Has she made out a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII?
a. Yes
b. No
16. Sharon was devastated when she didn’t get the promotion, as her bosses told her for months that she was “next in line” and that this one was hers. She thinks of how much she cried, how depressed she was when Sofia got it, and how she feels every day reporting to Sofia as her boss. Ugh. Thus, Sharon tacks on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Will she win this claim in tort?
a. Yes
b. No, but she might have prevailed on a negligent promotion claim
c. No
17. Packa Pharma is considering what to do about Sharon’s lawsuit. It decides to deny everything but not to offer any testimony from the decision makers about the promotion decision. (As it turns out, Sofia is a bit flirty and the promotion decision makers want no part of having to justify their actions.) Does Sharon win the Title VII gender discrimination lawsuit because of the rebuttable presumption?
a. No, because the rebuttable presumption never arose
b. No, because once it arose they did not rebut it
c. Yes, but only because they have the right to do so under employment at will
d. Yes, because they are offering a pretext defense without a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
Happy Harry’s New-to-You Vehicle Dealership (Ringoes, New Jersey)
Happy Harry’s New-to-You Vehicle Dealership is a massive showroom and inventory located in Ringoes, New Jersey. “Happy Harry” is actually a fictional name – Happy Harry’s New-to-You Vehicle Dealership is run by Susan Grouse, a highly-educated and savvy businessperson who has been in the used car dealer business for her entire life. Happy Harry was the name of her childhood cat, who always looked grumpy – it is something of an inside joke. She is in her early seventies and is thinking of retiring soon, but she isn’t sure whether she really wants to or what she would do with her time. Susan is looking for a fresh-out-of-business school smart person to come work for her so that she can groom that person in the business and, at the very least, reduce her day-to-day involvement. She currently has thirty employees, no union, no individual contracts of employment, and no employee handbook.
18. Susan prefers to hire her protégé from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey business school – you have applied for the job, but she tells you she prefers to hire from her alma mater so she will not consider your application. She tells you she’ll file it in case she changes her mind. Is this discrimination?
a. Yes
b. No
19. Refer to the previous question. Is this legal under federal law?
a. Yes
b. No
20. Is it legal under federal law for Happy Harry’s to have no employee handbook?
a. Yes
b. No
21. Susan changes her mind and decides to give you a shot at the job. It is a big opportunity, and you are thrilled. She tells you she specifically wanted to hire an HR major because there are so many legal and HRM issues that are critical to her business’ success. She knows that she should have an employee handbook, and that it is important. You tell her:
a. Yes, it is important for taking a lot of the question out of how things will be handled, and will contribute to everyone’s feeling of being treated fairly
b. Yes, it is illegal not to have an employee handbook that sets out discipline policies, grounds for termination, etc.
c. Yes, it is important to have a handbook as the courts will defer to the policies determined by management and set forth in the handbook.
d. Yes, it is important to have a handbook because it acts as a contract of employment for her employees and right now they are operating without one
e. Yes, it is important to have a handbook because other companies have them and it will look suspicious to courts if she does not
22. A review of what people are making at the car dealership shows that women are mostly in the support/financing/secretarial jobs and men are mostly in the mechanics and sales jobs at the dealership. As a result, women are making significantly less than men at the dealership. Is it illegal to pay men and women different amounts for the different jobs they work in at the same company?
a. Yes
b. No
23. If Susan recruits and hires without regard to gender, can she be held liable for Title VII violation because men gravitated to the higher paying jobs?
a. No, but she needs to be sure she is recruiting and hiring fairly for all the jobs
b. No, people will do what they want to do and she can’t influence that
c. Susan needs to even out things by hiring some female mechanics and salespeople
d. Susan needs to even out things by raising the women’s salary in the support jobs
24. Susan is angry that three of her highest producing employees have been lured away by a competing dealership … she wants to know if she can sue them for breach of contract or sue the competing dealership for theft. What do you advise her?
a. You can’t sue the employees because they were employees at will, but you can sue the competing dealership for defamation
b. You can’t sue the employees because they were free to quit at any time, but you can require they now sign noncompete agreements
c. You can sue the employees for tortious interference with business relations, but the competing dealership has free speech rights to offer the employees’ jobs
d. You can sue the employees for tortious interference with business relations and the competing dealership for negligent hiring
e. You can’t sue the employees but you can sue the competing dealership for tortious interference with business relations
25. In a fit of rage, Bob, one of the mechanics punched a customer for implying that he stole items from the car and accusing him of using old engine parts but charging him for new parts. Susan is shocked – Bob has worked there twelve years and has never even raised his voice to anyone! It turns out Bob is going through a really rough personal time right now due to a divorce. The customer is suing Bob in tort for assault and battery. What does the customer have to prove to win a tort suit against Bob?
a. Bob had a duty to the customer not to hurt him, Bob broke that duty by punching him, and that the punch caused the customer harm.
b. Bob was intentionally negligent in taking care of the car and intended to profit from his actions
c. Bob has a history of violent behavior, the dealership should have known that if it took reasonable care, and the dealership should have had Bob working where he couldn’t do harm
d. Bob meant to cause the customer harm at the moment that he acted, even if he normally doesn’t act that way
e. All of the above
26. Same facts as the previous question: In a fit of rage, Bob, one of the mechanics punched a customer for implying that he stole items from the car and accusing him of using old engine parts but charging him for new parts. Susan is shocked – Bob has worked there twelve years and has never even raised his voice to anyone! It turns out Bob is going through a really rough personal time right now due to a divorce.
Now, the customer is suing Happy Harry’s dealership for the tort of negligent hiring and/or negligent supervision. What does the customer have to prove to win a tort suit against Happy Harry’s dealership?
a. Bob had a duty to the customer not to hurt him, Bob broke that duty by punching him, and that the punch caused the customer harm.
b. Bob was intentionally negligent in taking care of the car and intended to profit from his actions
c. Bob has a history of violent behavior, the dealership should have known that if it took reasonable care, and the dealership should have had Bob working where he couldn’t do harm
d. Bob meant to cause the customer harm at the moment that he acted, even if he normally doesn’t act that way
e. All of the above
27. Same facts as the previous two questions: In a fit of rage, Bob, one of the mechanics punched a customer for implying that he stole items from the car and accusing him of using old engine parts but charging him for new parts. Susan is shocked – Bob has worked there twelve years and has never even raised his voice to anyone! It turns out Bob is going through a really rough personal time right now due to a divorce.
Can the customer report the action to the police and testify against Bob in a criminal trial while at the same time suing Bob and Happy Harry’s in a tort action?
a. No, torts are not crimes and they cannot both be pursued
b. Yes, torts are different from crimes but the same behavior can result in tort liability or criminal liability even though the standard of proof in the tort action is higher because it involves awarding the victim money
c. Yes, torts are different from crimes but the same behavior can result in tort liability or criminal liability even though the standard of proof in the criminal action is higher
d. No, by definition if the customer wins on the tort claim, he would also win on the criminal claim
e. Because the state prosecutes all criminal actions, the prosecutor decides whether Bob should be tried for the crime of assault and battery or whether the customer can bring a private tort action; it is not the decision of the customer.
In July 2013, Raina, an African-American woman, applied for a job as an account analyst in the Sacramento, California location. She was qualified for the job, but the interview didn’t go as well as she thought it did. After the interview, Steve, the on-site manager, wrote a memo to the file stating “Raina undoubtedly has the educational background and the intelligence to do the job. Her references are excellent. She is probably one of the smartest people I’ve ever interviewed. Her abrasive and abrupt manner, however, were severely off-putting. I just don’t think she’d work well with the team, which is a laid-back and friendly group. She seems too competitive and may be difficult for others to work well with.” He decides not to offer her the job, and to keep looking.
Raina is deeply disappointed not to get the job. She is furious to see it is still being advertised on monster.com, as she assumed she lost out to a more qualified job candidate. Instead, it seems they’d rather keep on looking for someone than to hire her! She’s so mad, she hires a lawyer named Dusty. Dusty works for Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe – a prestigious law firm in Sacramento. After exhausting her administrative remedies, Raina gets a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC and brings suit in the District Court of the Northern District of California under Title VII for race discrimination and gender discrimination. You work for Google in the HRM Department and are assigned this case.
28. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act can Raina request a jury trial?
a. Yes, the 1991 amendments to Title VII allowed for jury trials
b. No, this is a case of constructive discharge
c. No, there is no jury trial for cases under the doctrine of employment at will
d. Yes, because Raina’s freedom of association under the Bill of Rights has been violated
e. All of the above
29. Which element below is part of Raina’s prima facie case that she must prove for her race discrimination claim?
a. Google’s hiring practices disproportionately disadvantage African-Americans
b. After she was rejected, the position was eventually filled with an African-American male
c. After she was rejected, the position remained open and/or was eventually filled with a non-African-American applicant
d. Steve is not qualified to assess applicants for this position
e. Google has a past practice of not hiring African-American females
30. What is Raina’s theory of discrimination on the race discrimination charge?
a. Disparate treatment
b. Class action
c. Disparate impact
d. Harassment/hostile work environment
e. Retaliation
31. What does Raina have to do to get the benefit of the rebuttable presumption that illegal discrimination has occurred?
a. Prove all the elements of a prima facie case
b. Prove that the employer’s reasons are pretexts/lies
c. Prove that she was the best of all the applicants for the job
d. Prove that the statistics show she was disadvantaged in the hiring decision
e. All of the above
32. Assume that Raina makes out a prima facie case for her genderdiscrimination claim. What is a possible LNDR that Google could offer?
a. Statistics that females have not performed as well in these types of positions at the company as males have
b. Proof that elements of the job require that the job holder be male
c. Evidence that Steve’s team is a laid back team and that he has refused other assertive candidates of various races
d. Evidence that Steve has refused other assertive candidates of both genders and Steve’s testimony that he believes his team needs to be filled with laid back members
e. It was impossible to tell if Raina was qualified given the interview process
33. If Google offers proof supporting their LNDR for the failure to hire Raina, is the rebuttable presumption of discrimination still in place?
a. Yes, until Google rebuts it
b. No, Google has rebutted it
c. Yes, the rebuttable presumption stays with the plaintiff throughout the entire trial
d. No, the rebuttable presumption is after the point Google would be offering their LNDR
e. No rebuttable presumption arises in gender discrimination cases of this type
34. Does Raina get a chance to dispute the LNDR offered by Google as their defense?
a. Yes! She will likely offer evidence that the reason given is a “pretext” (lie) and that the real reason for the failure to hire is discrimination
b. No! She had her chance to offer evidence first, so after Google presents their evidence, the case goes to the jury.
35. The fact-finder is really torn between Raina’s and Google’s versions of what happened, but all in all believes that Steve is a credible witness who wasn’t lying on the stand. All told, the fact-finder finds just a tiny bit more of the evidence points to Google’s not having discriminated more than to either gender or race discrimination having occurred. Is this enough for Google to win?
a. No, Google needs to meet the scintilla of evidence standard of proof, and it has not
b. Yes, Google needs to meet the reasonable doubt standard of proof, and it has
c. No, Google needs to meet the substantial evidence standard of proof, and it has not
d. Yes, Google needs to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard, and it has
e. This is a trick question because there is no fact-finder in Title VII trials
Wheels-to-Go
Wheels-to-Go is a car and bike rental company headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with twenty locations throughout the state. They rent only hybrid vehicles and bicycles, as part of their mission is to care for the planet. They are a relatively new company (about three years old with fifty-five employees throughout Pennsylvania) and hope to grow rapidly and expand into other geographic regions.
Once in a while (but not very often), a renter will tip an employee a couple of dollars for bringing their bike or car around – this has resulted in up to an extra ten dollars a month for those lucky employees. Full-time employees also get the free use of any rental cars or bikes that are not currently reserved to customers. Everyone that works there is an employee (no independent contractors), no one has an individual contract of employment and there is no union representing any of the workers. The following questions focus on some legal issues faced by Wheels-to-Go in their business.
36. Wheels-to-Go hires only people who can ride a bike, as all the jobs require moving bikes from location to location. Is this job requirement legal?
a. Yes
b. No
37. Wheels-to-Go is hiring people over 21 for their full-time positions because their insurance rates are lower if they implement this age restriction. What is the legal minimum according to federal law that they can pay them per hour?
a. $2.13
b. $4.25
c. $7.25
d. $10.10
e. There is no federal minimum wage restriction that applies here
38. Wheels-to-Go is thinking of hiring some high school students for part-time positions (vehicle cleaning, taking phone and online reservations, etc.) this July and August. They are expecting that with summer vacations, they will need the extra help. What is the legal minimum according to federal law that they can pay these part-time workers per hour for these two months?
a. There is no federal minimum wage restriction on workers under 21
b. There is no federal minimum wage restriction on part-time workers
c. $7.25
d. $2.13
e. $4.25
39. Can the state of Pennsylvania impose a minimum wage if there is a federal minimum wage that applies to the employees of Wheels-to-Go?
a. No, if there is a federal minimum wage that applies then the state cannot legislate one; federal law supersedes state law
b. No, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the U.S. Department of Labor forbids state interference in all matters of wage and hours by individual states
c. Yes, it can impose a higher minimum wage. If the state passes a lower minimum wage, the federal (higher) minimum wage will apply.
d. Yes, it can impose a lower minimum wage for jobs that take place within its state borders; the federal minimum wage will not apply.
e. It depends on whether the state has an unemployment insurance system approved by the federal government; if it does, it can set the state minimum wage and overrule the federal one.
40. Can a 14 year old 8th grader legally have a summer job answering phones to enter reservations in the computer for Wheels-to-Go?
a. Probably. The FLSA regulates child labor and the states also regulate the rules for hours worked and types of jobs for workers under 18.
b. No. The FLSA forbids child labor; the states regulate rules for hours worked and types of jobs for workers over 18.
c. Yes. The FLSA and the state laws permit any kind of work that workers under 18 want to do in the summer because it will not interfere with their educational opportunities.
d. Probably not. The FLSA and the state laws do not permit dangerous work, even if it is in the summer.
e. Yes, but only for 90 days, then the job must stop if the worker is under 21.
41. Candace, a 25 year old college graduate, accepts a full-time marketing position with Wheels-to-Go. In her orientation, she learns that she is required to clock in when she gets to the office, just like all the other workers. She is surprised, because she is being paid a yearly salary above the legal cap instead of an hourly rate and has been classified as “exempt” due to her duties. Stan, her manager, tells her not to worry about it – just to do it because it is company policy and to fit in, but they will never dock her salary for being a little bit late. Stan tells Candace the company will only dock her salary if she is two hours late or more, so not to worry. What would you advise Wheels-to-Go about their clocking-in policy?
a. This is a good policy because it makes the hourly workers and the salaried workers feel more equal (since everyone is clocking in and out) and encouraged by the FLSA
b. This is a good policy because it signals to all workers how important it is to be on time for work (consistent with the FLSA)
c. This is a risky policy because it may jeopardize Candace’s exempt status (under the FLSA)
d. This would have been a risky policy (under the FLSA) but if it is company policy across the board for all workers, it will not jeopardize Candace’s exempt status (under the FLSA)
e. This is a risky policy because it treats exempt workers differently from non-exempt workers and that could be illegal discrimination
42. Andrew is an hourly worker who travels a lot – his job is to pick up the one-way vehicle rentals that have been driven to Florida and return them to Pennsylvania. He loves his job – he loves Florida and he likes the freedom of being away from an office. He also loves to drive and he is a good driver! Unfortunately, in his latest trip home from Palm Beach, he got into an accident with a big truck on the highway entrance ramp. The police reports are not clear who was at fault, but Andrew is vehement that it was the truck driver’s fault! Andrew suffered severe whiplash, two broken bones in his wrist, three broken ribs, a concussion, and bruising from the air bags. The Wheels-to-Go vehicle was totaled. He is out of work and recovering at home until he heals enough to return to work at Wheels-to-Go. What benefits can Andrew collect to help him with his medical co-pays and to pay for the time he will be missing work while he heals?
a. Unemployment insurance and workers compensation
b. Intentional interference and unemployment compensation
c. OSHA benefits and whistleblower compensation
d. Unemployment compensation only
e. Workers compensation only
43. If true, what fact below would MOST JEOPARDIZE Andrew’s claim for workers compensation benefits? (See previous question for facts of Andrew’s situation.)
a. Wheels-to-Go didn’t fire him after the accident
b. Wheels-to-Go did fire him after the accident
c. The accident was only 10% the truck driver’s fault; it was mostly Andrew’s fault
d. Andrew was drinking alcohol while driving the Wheels-to-Go vehicle and that may have caused the accident
e. Andrew wasn’t on his way back to Wheels-to-Go with the vehicle; he was off to bet on the racetrack first and that’s when the accident happened
44. Knowing what you know about Andrew and his duties (see question 42), is he properly classified as an exempt or a non-exempt employee?
a. Exempt
b. Non-exempt
45. What are the four elements of every tort?
a. Duty, Pretext, Rebuttable Presumption, LNDR
b. Prima Facie Case, Defense, BFOQ, Pretext
c. Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages
d. Negligence, Recklessness, Intentionality, Strict Liability
46. We looked at gender discrimination and the idea of mixed motives. Is it legal to refuse to hire women with kids as long as you hire women without kids, men with kids, and men without kids?
a. No, that’s illegal under Title VII
b. Yes, that’s legal because kids isn’t a protected class
47. We looked at reliability and validity as concepts for selection tests. If you have an applicant that has come in three times and taken a job selection test, scoring 85, 86, and 84 out of 100 each time, what do you know about that test?
a. It’s probably valid
b. It’s probably reliable
c. It’s probably disparate impact
d. It is a legal test for job selection
e. Not enough information to judge either reliability or validity here
48. True or false? A company can legally require employees not to say anything bad about their employer on social media under an anti-defamation policy in the employee handbook. (Hint: We mentioned this in lecture based on a case in the news.)
a. True! That’s just telling them they can’t commit the tort of defamation.
b. False! That may interfere with their labor/employment rights.
c. True! If it’s in the employee handbook and consistently enforced, it’s legal.
d. False! Companies can’t regulate off-duty conduct.
e. Not enough facts to answer that question.
49. What Supreme Court Justice died before Exam One and has yet to be replaced?
a. Antonin Scalia
b. Ruth Baeder Ginsburg
c. Stephen Kennedy
d. Clarence Thomas
50. You’re going to check out the KGW Health materials posted on Blackboard when?
a. Never. (Wrong answer.)
b. When Hell Freezes Over. (Wrong answer.)
c. When Pigs Fly. (Wrong answer.)
d. Just as soon as I run out of everything else to do. (Wrong answer.)
e. Right away! Can’t wait to do this Mock Trial and Group Prep starts in Tuesday’s class!
