1. TheWonder City Restaurant uses a staffing firm to obtain temporaryworkers. After the staffing firm sent over a temporary hostess,Wonder asked the firm to replace her with someone of another race. Ifthe hostess who was replaced proceeds with a Title VII claim, Wondercannot be liable because the temporary hostess was never itsemployee. True    False
2. Mr.Jone was employed by Barker Sock Company as a sewing machinerepairman in Plant #5. He, along with the other 700 employees, wasinformed that the plant had been permanently closed by a writtennotice on the door when he arrived at work. A. Mr.Jones` only recourse is to file for unemployment benefits.B. Mr.Jones has no recourse because he was an employee-at-will.C. Mr.Jones may be eligible to receive his salary and benefits for the next60 days.D. Noneof the choices are correct.
3. TheCorey`s Cupcakes operates a retail store for baked goods and providescatering services, primarily in the neighborhood where it is located.It has 15 employees, including bakers, sales staff, drivers andoffice personnel. Twelve of Corey`s employees are Irish or Italianand Catholic. Under the Guidelines on Discrimination Because ofReligion or National Origin, Corey`s has an affirmative duty toengage in outreach and positive recruitment activities, suchas A. thedevelopment of procedures to ensure equal employmentopportunity.B. establishmeaningful contacts with religious and ethnic organizations toimprove its recruiting.C. usereligious and ethnic advertising for employment advertising.D. Noneof the choices are correct.
4. Octaviais an employee of DFC, Inc., a defense contractor. She discloses tothe Department of Justice information relating to fraud in carryingout a defense contract on which she is working. DFC subsequentlyfires her. Octavia then files a lawsuit against DFC for violating theFederal Whistleblower Statute. A. Octaviacan win reinstatement only.B. Octaviacan win compensatory damages only.C. Octavia`scase will be dismissed.D. Octaviacan win compensatory and punitive damages.
5. SallyLandon is employed by Kent Electronics, Inc. in its London facility.Kent Electronics, Inc. is a U.S. corporation. Sally is not a U.S.citizen. Sally`s job was eliminated in a recent reduction in force.She noticed that only women were laid off. She contacted EEOC inWashington, D.C. to file a claim for discrimination. A. Sally`sclaim will be investigated by EEOC, but not all remedies available toU.S. citizens will be available to Sally.B. Sally`sclaim cannot be filed with EEOC because the discrimination did notoccur in the United States.C. Sally`sclaim will be investigated by EEOC.D. Sally`sclaim cannot be filed with EEOC because she is not a U.S. citizen andshe does not live in the United States.
6. CarolJones, a U.S. citizen, was employed with MET, Inc. in its Londonoffice. Met Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principle placeof business in New York. Ms. Jones was recently laid off, and shebelieves she was a victim of racial discrimination. Ms. Jones A. hasthe right to file a claim for discrimination against her formeremployer pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1991.B. hasthe right to file a claim for discrimination against her formeremployer pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964.C. hasno recourse because employment discrimination laws do not apply tolayoffs.D. hasno recourse because she was not working in the U.S. at the time shewas laid off.
7. Melanieis a white female, and she is married to Muhammad, who is of MiddleEastern descent. She has been employed at The Office Works for 3weeks. Melanie has been subjected to daily verbal abuse sinceMuhammad dropped by to take her to lunch and her co-workers becameaware 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 totasks in the stockroom when previously she assisted customers in thecomputer department. A. Melaniedoes not have a claim for national origin discrimination because sheis not a member of a protected class.B. Melaniedoes have a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VIIbecause she is being harassed based on the national origin of herhusband.C. Melaniedoes not have a claim for national origin discrimination because shehas only been employed for 3 weeks.D. Melaniedoes have a claim for national origin discrimination because thebehavior of her co-workers and supervisor is neither severe norpervasive.
8. BRCPartners is a consulting firm. Sam and Arnie are analysts for BRC.Sam was hired as an employee and Arnie was hired as an independentcontractor. They both work in the same BRC office under the samesupervisor. They both must work Monday through Friday during standardbusiness hours. Both are required to report to weekly staff meetings.Sam is paid a salary and the proper federal and state tax witholdingsare made. Arnie does not receive benefits like retirement and healthinsurance and he is paid by the project with no federal and statewithholdings. Arnie signed a contract that clearly stated he was anindependent contractor and not an employee. A. BRChas properly classified Arnie as an independent contractor.B. BRChas improperly classified Arnie as an independent contractor.C. BRChas improperly classified Arnie as an independent contractor,however, its contract with Arnie is binding and BRC will have noliability under federal or state law for themisclassification.D. BRChas improperly classified Arnie as an independent contractor,however, its contract with Arnie is binding and BRC will have noliability under federal and state law for the misclassification, butArnie will have liability under federal and state law.
9. JayFoster was employed as an auto mechanic with Madison & Sons AutoShop. Mr. Madison employed 30 mechanics in each of his facilities inDenver, Colorado. Jay was the only African American mechanic and hehad been employed by Mr. Madison for approximately 9 years. He hadapplied for a promotion to chief mechanic on 4 separate occasions andeach time, the promotion had been given to a white male with lessseniority and less experience. After being denied the promotion forthe 5thtime, Jay filed a claim with EEOC. Jay`s employment was terminatedafter the EEOC contacted Mr. Madison concerning the claim. A. Theonly claim that can be asserted against Mr. Madison is discriminationbased on race.B. Mr.Madison can only be found to be liable for violation of theanti-retaliation provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.C. Mr.Madison may be found liable for violation of the prohibitions againstdiscrimination and the anti-retaliation provisions in the CivilRights Act of 1964.D. Noneof the choices are correct.
10. ABC,Inc. solicited bids from various independent contractors to landscapethe grounds of its new office complex. Drew, head of facilitiesmanagement told Patty, his secretary, that he would not accept anybids from Hispanic contractors. Drew explained that he wouldauthorize hiring only American contractors to work on the grounds. AHispanic contractor brings a lawsuit against ABC fordiscrimination. A. Drew`srefusal to hire Hispanic companies is not a violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act because that law does not cover discriminationagainst independent contractors.B. TheHispanic contractor cannot prevail in a discrimination case becauseDrew`s conversation with his secretary is confidential and cannot beused as evidence.C. Drew`srefusal to hire Hispanic companies is a violation of Title VII of theCivil Rights Act.D. Drew`srefusal to hire Hispanic companies is a violation of the IndependentContractors Act of 2006.
11. TangLi is employed by Henderson Corporation as a computer analyst. Once,in a fit of anger, Bob, his supervisor, used an ethnic slur inreferring to Tang. Six months later, Bob yelled at Tang, calling himstupid. A. Tanghas a claim for harassment based on national origin under TitleVII.B. Tangdoes not have a claim for harassment based on national origin underTitle VII because these two incidents, although offensive, would notcreate a hostile work environment.C. Tanghas a claim for harassment based on national origin because anytimean ethnic slur is used in the workplace, it constitutes harassmentand the employer is liable.D. Tangdoes not have a claim for harassment based on national origin becausehe did not report the first incident