Question 1

You would expect that it would be illegal for an employer to have an education requirement, such as a high school diploma, unless there could be shown to be a business necessity behind the requirement.

Accepted Answer

Employers are generally allowed to set education requirements, such as a high school diploma, for jobs as long as they are relevant and necessary for the position. However, under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if such requirements disproportionately exclude certain individuals, employers may need to show that these requirements are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Question 2

If company rules can be shown to discriminate against certain employees, the company may be able to justify these rules as a "business necessity."

Accepted Answer

While discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, or other protected characteristics is illegal, companies may be able to justify rules that may disproportionately affect certain employees as a "business necessity." However, the burden is on the company to prove that the rule is necessary for the business and that there is no less discriminatory alternative available.

Question 3

In general, employers may not use standardized aptitude tests for employees because they are discriminatory.

Accepted Answer

Employers may use standardized aptitude tests for employees as long as they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. However, if the tests have a disproportionate impact on certain protected groups, they may be considered discriminatory and therefore illegal. Employers should ensure that their tests are validated and reliable, and that alternative job-related assessments are available for those who may be adversely affected by the tests.

Question 4

In EEOC v. Dial Corp. the EEOC found that the strength test used by Dial did not meet the business necessity defense as it was not related to job performance.

Accepted Answer

This is the correct statement. In EEOC v. Dial Corp., the EEOC found that the strength test used by Dial did not meet the business necessity defense as it was not related to job performance.

Question 5

In EEOC v. Dial Corp., where an employer used a test of strength to screen job applicants for ability to do the job, the appeals court held that the test was a non-discriminatory way to select employees that happened to be hard for women to pass.

Accepted Answer

The appeals court in EEOC v. Dial Corp. held that the strength test used by the employer was discriminatory because it disproportionately disqualified women from employment and was not shown to be closely related to the job requirements, thus violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Question 6

In EEOC v. Dial Corp. the EEOC found that the strength test used by Dial was neutral in its impact in that it was part of the job requirement and more men happen to be stronger than women.

Accepted Answer

In EEOC v. Dial Corp., the EEOC argued that the strength test used by Dial disproportionately excluded women from employment opportunities and was not directly related to the job requirements, thus it was not neutral in its impact.

Question 7

Companies that use professionally developed ability tests to screen job applicants are required to supply statistical validation of the tests.

Accepted Answer

Companies are required to supply statistical validation of ability tests used to screen job applicants to ensure that the tests are reliable, valid, and do not have adverse impacts on protected groups.

Question 8

A valid defense to an age discrimination charge would be that the employer observes the terms of a real seniority system.

Accepted Answer

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) permits employers to implement a real seniority system that does not discriminate based on age. If the employer can prove that the employment decision was made based on a legitimate seniority system and not age, it can be a valid defense against an age discrimination charge.

Question 9

Disparate impact employment discrimination is based on intentional discriminatory policies by an employer.

Accepted Answer

Disparate impact employment discrimination is based on unintentional policies or practices that may have a disproportionate impact on a protected group of people, even if there was no intentional discrimination.

Question 10

Since some customers prefer to deal with people of their own race, employers may assign black employees to deal with black customers, white employees to deal with white customers, etc., under the defense of business necessity.

Accepted Answer

It is illegal to assign employees to deal with customers of a certain race based on the customer's preference. This violates anti-discrimination laws and is not a valid defense of business necessity. Employers should ensure that all employees are trained to provide quality service to customers of all races.

Question 11

If an employer has a merit pay system in place, that rewards employees based on productivity, and the result is that, on average, women employees earn less than men employees, the system is illegal under Title VII.

Accepted Answer

Merit pay systems are not inherently illegal under Title VII, but if they result in discrimination based on sex, they would be illegal. The employer would need to examine the factors contributing to the pay discrepancy and determine if there is an underlying issue of discrimination.

Question 12

Under Title VII, it is illegal to perpetuate a past pattern of intentional employment discrimination.

Accepted Answer

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from perpetuating a past pattern of intentional employment discrimination. Employers must take steps to correct past discrimination and ensure that it does not continue in the future.

Question 13

Neutral business rules that happen to perpetuate the effects of discriminatory practices that have been ended are not violations of Title VII.

Accepted Answer

Neutral business rules that perpetuate the effects of past discrimination can be considered violations of Title VII if they result in disparate impact on a protected class and are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business.

Question 14

In a few situations, such as in hospitals, an employer may discriminate on the basis of race as a bona fide occupational qualification.

Accepted Answer

The concept of bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) allows for discrimination based on factors like sex, religion, or national origin under very limited circumstances when they are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a particular business. However, race is never considered a BFOQ under U.S. federal law, including in hospitals or any other settings.

Question 15

The Supreme Court has upheld seniority systems even when they maintain the effects of past discrimination.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has ruled that seniority systems, which give preference to employees with longer tenure, are permissible even if they perpetuate the effects of past discrimination. This is based on the premise that seniority is a neutral criterion that rewards experience and loyalty, and does not reflect any discriminatory intent. However, the court has also recognized that seniority systems can only be used as a defense against discrimination claims if they are applied in a neutral and non-discriminatory manner.

Question 16

In EEOC v. Dial Corp. the EEOC found that the strength test used by Dial violated the rule against disparate impact in workplace requirements.

Accepted Answer

The statement is true. The EEOC found that the strength test used by Dial had a disparate impact on female employees and violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Question 17

Disparate impact employment discrimination is based on unintentional actions that cause employment discrimination.

Accepted Answer

Disparate impact employment discrimination refers to employment practices that appear to be neutral but have a disproportionately negative impact on a particular group, even though the employer may not have intended to discriminate.

Question 18

You would expect that an employer would not be liable for employment discrimination for having neutral work rules, such as educational requirements, that accidentally have adverse impact on certain groups.

Accepted Answer

While work rules that appear neutral on the surface may not seem discriminatory, they can still have a disparate impact on protected classes of employees. Additionally, the employer may still be liable if they fail to demonstrate a business necessity for the rule or if a less discriminatory alternative exists.

Question 19

In EEOC v. Dial Corp., where an employer used a test of strength to screen job applicants for ability to do the job, the appeals court held that the test was not a valid way to select employees and served to discriminate against women.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately summarizes the decision made by the appeals court in EEOC v. Dial Corp. The court held that using a strength test to screen job applicants was discriminatory against women and not a valid way to select employees.

Question 20

In a few situations, such as modeling clothing, an employer may discriminate on the basis of race as a bona fide occupational qualification.

Accepted Answer

It is illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, even if they argue that it is a bona fide occupational qualification. There may be other qualifications, such as physical attributes or skills, that are necessary for a particular job, but race should never be a factor in employment decisions.

Quiz 16: Employment Discrimination