Quiz 35: Employment Discrimination

Business

There is no answer for this question

The court wished to differentiate between the anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions to emphasize that the anti-retaliation provision had a more extensive scope. Thus, an employer could not do harm to employee through actions that were not directly related to employment but were adverse to the employee nonetheless. If the court had relied on the anti-discrimination provision, then anything that happened outside the office would not be considered.

Analysis whether there is an violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended in the given situations: (a) Title VII only applies to employers who have at least fifteen employees, labor unions operating hiring halls, employment agencies and government entities. In this case, T only has ten employees and is a consulting firm. Thus, it does not fall under any of the categories. (b) Here, Title VII would apply because there are over 15 employees. This is a discrimination based on race or national origin. Generally, an employer cannot discriminate based on race. In this case, to avoid liability, the employer needs to show that the standard of hiring African-Americans has a demonstrable relationship to their needs of the job in question. The employer should also consider the requirement of "African-American" versus those of African descent, because it could be argued that the employer is acting illegally by discriminating on the basis of birth country.

There is no answer for this question

There is no answer for this question

There is no answer for this question

There is no answer for this question

Related Quizzes