Question 1

Thomas hires Desai, an alien, to work for his firm. When he hired Desai, he required Desai to produce the statutorily required documents demonstrating his right to work in the U.S. The documents were clever forgeries, and Desai is actually an illegal alien.

Accepted Answer

Under IRCA (the Immigration Reform and Control Act), employers are required to verify the legal status of their employees and hire only individuals authorized to work in the U.S. The fact that Thomas required Desai to produce the statutorily required documents demonstrating his right to work in the U.S., and that the documents were clever forgeries, can be used as an affirmative defense to liability under IRCA, only if Thomas can also show that he relied, in good faith, on the genuineness of the documents. In other words, if Thomas conducted a reasonable investigation to verify the authenticity of Desai's documents, but was still deceived, he may be able to avoid liability under IRCA. However, if Thomas was willfully blind or had actual knowledge that Desai was not authorized to work in the U.S., he may still be liable for Desai's subsequent loss of the right to work.

Question 2

Omar Khaleel applied for a job as a bus driver with the Overland Omnibus Corporation. His employer was worried that it might be dangerous to allow someone of Middle Eastern descent to drive a large bus, loaded with 160 gallons of fuel, into the heart of the downtown areas in the cities served by the company. Therefore, he asked Omar to submit a more stringent background check than was used for other bus drivers. Eight months later, the background check was completed and Omar was hired as a driver.

Accepted Answer

Omar has a basis for a claim under Title VII because he was treated differently than other bus drivers based on his Middle Eastern descent. Requesting a more stringent background check solely based on his national origin is discriminatory. The employer's concerns regarding safety could have been addressed with a uniform policy for background checks for all bus drivers without singling out one employee based on his background. The other options are incorrect because being prudent in hiring or being hired as a bus driver does not exclude one from being protected under Title VII, and difficulty in pronouncing his name is not sufficient grounds for a discrimination claim.

Question 3

Joe is a white male and was laid off during a reduction in force. His employer chose to let him go in order to create a balanced work force by retaining employees of other national origins.

Accepted Answer

Even though Joe is white, he can still have a claim for national origin discrimination if he was let go in order to create a more balanced work force with employees of other national origins. National origin discrimination under Title VII covers discrimination against an individual based on their actual or perceived ethnic, cultural, or linguistic characteristics.

Question 4

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) makes it illegal to

Accepted Answer

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) makes it illegal for employers to continue to employ an alien in the U.S. knowing that he/she has become an unauthorized alien. This means that employers must verify the employment eligibility of their employees and cannot knowingly continue to employ someone who has become unauthorized to work in the U.S.

Question 5

Virtually all of the non-U.S. citizens in the labor pool available to an employer are of Mexican descent, many of whom are legal aliens having the right to work in the U.S. The employer implements a policy against hiring any non-U.S. citizens. This policy:

Accepted Answer

The policy against hiring any non-U.S. citizens could be found to discriminate on the basis of national origin, resulting in disparate impact discrimination in violation of Title VII. While the policy may apply to all non-U.S. citizens, its impact would disproportionately affect individuals of Mexican descent, who make up the majority of the non-U.S. citizen labor pool available to the employer. Therefore, the policy has the potential to violate Title VII's prohibition against national origin discrimination.

Question 6

In Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that:

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress did not intend the term "national origin" to mean citizenship requirements in Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co. In this case, the plaintiff was denied a job solely based on the fact that he was not a U.S. citizen, despite being legally allowed to work in the United States. The court held that this violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The court clarified that national origin refers to one's ancestry, ethnicity, or cultural characteristics, but not citizenship status.

Question 7

Himiona wants to be a deputy sheriff in Outer Maple Grove County. Himiona, whose family is from New Zealand, has Maori ancestors. To honor his heritage, Himiona has a small moko tattoo across his cheeks and nose. Traditionally, moko was used to differentiate between and within Maori social classes, including stating regional or tribal affiliation based on the patterns and placement of the moko. The sheriff's department prohibits its deputy sheriffs from wearing visible tattoos. Himiona is told that he will need to remove his moko before he can apply to be a deputy sheriff.

Accepted Answer

The sheriff's department can enforce a dress code policy as long as it is enforced on an equal basis. The policy banning visible tattoos is likely a permissible dress code policy for a law enforcement agency to have a uniform appearance. Himiona's moko tattoo is not protected under Title VII as a national origin or racial characteristic, but rather as a cultural or religious expression, which does not have the same level of protection. Therefore, the department can defend against Himiona's claim by stating the dress code policy is necessary for the law enforcement agency.

Question 8

An employee who produces a United States passport as proof of citizenship must also produce which of the following to establish employment eligibility:

Accepted Answer

A United States passport alone is sufficient to establish both identity and employment eligibility for Form I-9 purposes.

Question 9

According to Garcia v. Spun Steak, facially neutral workplace policy will not cause a disparate impact with respect to a privilege of employment on the basis of national origin if:

Accepted Answer

The court in Garcia v. Spun Steak held that a facially neutral policy does not cause disparate impact if it can be easily complied with and noncompliance is a matter of individual preference, not an immutable characteristic.

Question 10

Smith issues a workplace policy stating that any employee who is married to anyone from any Latin American country will be ineligible for promotion to line supervisor level. This policy:

Accepted Answer

This policy violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin. The policy targets a specific national origin (Latin American countries) and results in discrimination against those who are connected to individuals from that region. The fact that the policy affects individuals based on their marital status further reinforces its discriminatory nature.

Question 11

An English-only policy in the workplace:

Accepted Answer

While an English-only policy may not be a violation of law, it can create an abusive or exclusionary environment for non-English speakers. It is important for employers to carefully consider the reasons for implementing such a policy and ensure that it is not discriminatory or harmful towards any employees. Additionally, non-English speakers have a protected right to express their cultural heritage, but this does not necessarily mean that they have the right to speak their native language in the workplace at all times.

Question 12

Melanie is a white female, and she is married to Muhammad, who is of Middle Eastern descent. She has been employed at The Office Works for 3 weeks. Melanie has been subjected to daily verbal abuse since Muhammad dropped by to take her to lunch and her co-workers became aware of his ethnicity. She has been called an "Arab whore" and a "terrorist." Her co-workers refuse to work with her, and her supervisor has condoned this behavior by assigning her to tasks in the stockroom when previously she assisted customers in the computer department.

Accepted Answer

Melanie has a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII because she is being harassed based on the national origin of her husband. Discrimination based on association with members of a particular national origin group is prohibited under Title VII. The fact that she has only been employed for 3 weeks is not relevant in this case.

Question 13

An employer is permitted to discriminate against individuals, in certain instances, on the basis of citizenship, by:

Accepted Answer

The Immigration Reform and Control Act allows employers to discriminate against individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States. Employers are required to verify the employment eligibility of their employees and are not allowed to knowingly hire unauthorized workers. This means that employers may ask for documentation of an employee's eligibility to work in the U.S. and may refuse to hire or terminate employees who are not authorized to work.

Question 14

Under the IRCA, employers

Accepted Answer

Under the IRCA, employers must verify the identity and work authorization of all new hires, but they are not required to fire employees who later provide valid documentation after initially presenting false documents.

Question 15

Margaret comes to work in clothes highly reflective of the national origin of her ancestors, and which also happen to violate the dress code of the White City Dairy. She is told to return home, and change into clothing that comports with the dress code.

Accepted Answer

White City can defend the dress code if Margaret's national heritage outfit poses a safety hazard. While Title VII does prohibit national origin discrimination, employers may require employees to comply with dress codes that are necessary for safety reasons. If Margaret's outfit poses a safety hazard, then White City can require her to change into clothing that meets its dress code. The other choices are incorrect because national origin discrimination is prohibited even if Margaret only wears heritage clothing on holidays (A), discomfort of customers or co-workers is not a valid defense for dress code violations (B), and allowing other employees to dress casually does not excuse Margaret from following the dress code (D).

Question 16

Luis Vargas has been employed as a security officer for Slate Mountain Waterworks for 10 years. He has worked with Brett Simpson, also a security guard, for the last 3 years. Both Luis and Brett applied for the job of chief security office when the position became available. Brett was hired for the position. Slate Mountain only has 10 employees. Luis overheard Mr. Slate say he would never promote a Mexican if he could give the job to a real American.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Luis Vargas has been employed as a...

Question 17

The term "green card" refers to

Accepted Answer

All of the choices (Resident Alien card, Permanent Resident card, and Alien Registration Receipt card) refer to the commonly known "green card." It is a document issued to non-US citizens who are authorized to live and work in the United States permanently.

Question 18

If an employer enforces an English-only policy in all areas of the workplace and at all times, including break times and other free time,

Accepted Answer

The EEOC considers English-only policies to be presumptively discriminatory, which means that the burden is on the employer to prove that the policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Allowing the policy to apply during break times or other free time may make it more difficult for the employer to demonstrate that it is truly necessary for business purposes.

Question 19

Jiao, a Chinese American woman, and Sophia, a white American woman, applied for jobs at Golden Enterprises. Jiao was not hired. In order to prevail on a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII, Jiao must prove

Accepted Answer

To prove national origin discrimination under Title VII, Jiao must prove that she was qualified for the job and that she was not hired because of her national origin. The qualifications of other applicants, such as Sophia, are not relevant to Jiao's claim. The size of the company (C) and whether Golden Enterprises can articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for hiring Sophia (B) may be relevant in the case, but they are not sufficient for Jiao to prevail on her claim.

Question 20

Nesbitt hires Francois, a legal alien working in the U.S. with the legal authority to do so. One month later, Francois loses his right to work in the U.S.:

Accepted Answer

Once Francois loses his right to work in the U.S., Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute a violation of IRCA if Nesbitt knows that Francois is now an unauthorized alien. IRCA requires employers to verify the employment eligibility of all employees at the time of their hiring, but also mandates that employers must not continue to employ a person who they know is no longer authorized to work in the U.S.

Quiz 7: National Origin Discrimination