Laura Manning applied for a job as a firefighter. She was 5-feet-2-inches tall and weighed 110 lbs. Laura was denied the position because she did not meet the height and weight requirements of 5-feet-4-inches tall and 130 lbs. The fire department’s height and weight requirements:
|[removed]||are not discriminatory if it can be shown that there is a relationship between the height and weight of the firefighter and her ability to perform the job.|
|[removed]||are not discriminatory because historically, firefighters have always been tall.|
|[removed]||are not discriminatory because Title VII only applies to gender discrimination, not long-standing societal traditions.|
Smith Paving, Inc. has a contract to construct a new bypass around the city. The project is approximately 23 miles from Smith’s office. Kelly O’Neal and Portia Davis were hired to keep track of the supplies delivered to the site. They were the only females working at this job site. Smith has installed portable restrooms at the construction site. Initially, Kelly and Portia would take breaks and drive back to the office to use the restroom because the on site restrooms were unsanitary. However, the foreman complained that these breaks took too much time. Kelly and Portia asked Smith to install a portable “female only” restroom because the others were unsanitary and could lead to urinary tract infections in females.
|[removed]||Kelly and Portia’s request for a separate restroom constitutes gender discrimination and Smith cannot comply without being liable under Title VII.|
|[removed]||Kelly and Portia’s request for a separate restroom should be granted unless installing the separate portable restroom would be an unreasonable financial burden on Smith.|
|[removed]||Smith has no legal obligation to provide separate restrooms unless state law requires him to do so.|
|[removed]||Smith can terminate Kelly and Portia for leaving the job site to use the restroom.|
Eric and Jessica are hired as coaches at Herbert Hoover High School in the same year. Eric coaches boys’ tennis and Jessica coaches girls’ tennis. The jobs also require them to each teach physical education classes approximately 50% of the time. Both have a bachelor’s degree in education and neither had prior teaching experience. Eric hosts a weekly radio show on current events at Hoover. Eric’s salary as coach is higher than Jessica’s salary as coach. Jessica complains that her pay is discriminatory.
|[removed]||Jessica cannot prevail under the Equal Pay Act because her job does not require equal skill, effort, and responsibility as Eric’s job because she does not also host a radio show for the school.|
|[removed]||Jessica cannot prevail under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because her job does not require equal skill, effort, and responsibility as Eric’s job because she does not also host a radio show for the school.|
|[removed]||Jessica can prevail under the Equal Pay Act or Title VII because she used to be a radio announcer before she became a teacher.|
|[removed]||Jessica can prevail under the Equal Pay Act or Title VII because Eric is not required to use his radio announcer’s skills to perform as a tennis coach.|
Solid Security Service hires male and female security officers. Solid only assigns the female employees to work at the local mall from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The company’s rationale is that the mall is a low risk area for violent crime until 3:00 p.m. Male employees are allowed to work day and night shifts and are assigned to a variety of work sites.
|[removed]||Solid is not liable for gender discrimination because it can use BFOQ as a defense to any claim filed by its female employees.|
|[removed]||Solid is not liable for gender discrimination because it employs men and women.|
|[removed]||Solid is liable for gender discrimination because its male and female employees are being treated differently based on their gender.|
|[removed]||Solid is not liable for gender discrimination because it pays all employees based on the same wage scale, regardless of gender.|
Harry and Sally work for Chemco Chemical Supply Company. Harry and Sally attended a concert out of town and failed to show up to work the following day. When they returned to work, Harry was given a verbal warning and Sally was terminated.
|[removed]||Sally has a claim for gender discrimination.|
|[removed]||Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if the company policy provides for termination for unexcused absences from work.|
|[removed]||Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if Harry has more seniority.|
|[removed]||Sally does not have a claim for gender discrimination if she has more seniority.|
Based on a case study in The American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, in which it was found that a jury would consider a female defense attorney as bolstering the credibility of a male defendant, John, a defendant in a case involving allegations of sexual harassment and rape, insists that the firm of Elliot and Ness put a female attorney in charge of his criminal case. The firm has 11 attorneys (four female and 11 male). One of the male attorneys feels that he is more qualified to handle the case and objects to assigning a female attorney based on John’s preference. If the law firm assigns a female attorney to John’s case, it is
|[removed]||not a violation of Title VII because it is a BFOQ based on the case study.|
|[removed]||a violation of Title VII because it is based on customer preference.|
|[removed]||not a violation of Title VII because John can articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for his preference.|
|[removed]||a violation of Title VII because the law firm has more than twice as many male attorneys as female attorneys.|
Stephanie is transgendered. Prior to becoming a woman, she was employed in the accounting department at Wright Brothers, LLC. She was fired after reporting to work dressed as a woman.
|[removed]||Stephanie has a cause of action under Title VII for gender discrimination against her former employer because she was fired for being transgendered.|
|[removed]||Stephanie does not have a cause of action under Title VII for gender discrimination because discriminating against transgendered persons is not considered gender discrimination.|
|[removed]||Stephanie does not have a cause of action under Title VII for gender discrimination because she did not file the action before she became a woman.|
|[removed]||Stephanie has a cause of action under Title VII for gender discrimination because she is legally considered a woman.|
The Foggy Bottom Sheriff’s Department requires all applicants for deputy sheriff to pass a pre-employment agility test. It requires an applicant to do 30 sit-ups in one minute, 25 pushups with no time limit, run 300 meters in 1 minute 11 seconds and drag a 165 pound dummy for a distance of 40 feet in 1 minute. Lisa McGregor fails the test. There are no female deputy sheriffs in the department.
|[removed]||Lisa has a valid claim for gender discrimination because the requirements of the agility test are too strenuous for most women.|
|[removed]||Lisa has a valid claim for gender discrimination because the requirements of the agility test are just a subterfuge to avoid a claim of discrimination for screening applicants by height and weight.|
|[removed]||Lisa does not have a valid claim for gender discrimination if the department can show that the agility test, as composed, is job-related and necessary.|
|[removed]||Lisa does not have a valid claim for gender discrimination because the requirements of the agility test are not too strenuous for some women.|
The dress code for Bright View Home Decorating required employees to report for work dressed in “smart casual clothes.” This meant that male employees could wear open collar sport shirts and women could wear slacks. However, when the district manager was scheduled to visit the Village of Upper Edge location, the Upper Edge store manager told the male employees to wear ties “because the district manager likes a professional look” and told female employees to wear skirts or dresses “because the district manager likes to see some leg.” Under Title VII, female employees at the Upper Edge store:
|[removed]||cannot complain because an employer has the right to set the workplace dress code.|
|[removed]||cannot complain because both make and female employees have to dress to please the district manager.|
|[removed]||can complain because it is harder to select an appropriate skirt or dress than an appropriate tie.|
|[removed]||can complain because the difference in attire is based on gender and has no business necessity.|
Mr. Tompkins, of Tompkins, Lawlor & Tompkins, Attorneys at law, was conducting an interview for a first year associate. He asked Misty Rabon if she was married and when she intended, if ever, to have children. His second interview was with Scott Naylor. He did not ask Scott either of these questions.
|[removed]||Misty Rabon has a claim for gender discrimination.|
|[removed]||Misty Rabon does not have a claim for gender discrimination because she was never employed by the law firm.|
|[removed]||Misty Rabon does not have a claim for gender discrimination because she was the only person that heard Mr. Tompkins ask the questions.|
|[removed]||Mr. Naylor has a claim for gender discrimination, but he must file it within 6 months of getting hired.|