WGU C233 EMPLOYMENT LAW
OBJECTIVE ASSESSEMENT TEST BANK
EXAM 2024 WITH ACTUAL CORRECT
QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED DETAILED
ANSWERS |FREQUENTLY TESTED
QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS |ALREADY
GRADED A+|BRAND
NEW!!|GUARANTEED ASS |LATEST
UPDATE
There is a misconception that the FLSA prevents employers from
requiring workers to work more than eight hours per day or more than forty hours per week. This is not
so. The FLSA does require that overtime be paid, and that it is earned on a weekly, not daily, basis.
The ______________ is the most frequently violated OSHA regulation.
continual training requirement
Under this requirement, employers are required to provide training to workers on a periodic basis and
whenever an employee is hired or transferred to a new job assignment.
In common law, an injured employee could make a tort claim against an employer for negligence if the
employer's breach of the duty to provide a safe workplace caused the worker's injury. However, three
employer defenses severely limit the relief an injured worker could obtain. These are:
Contributory negligence-the worker's errant conduct that contributes to the injury
Assumption of the risk-the worker knew and accepted the risk of potential injury; and
Fellow servant rule-another employee, not the employer, caused the injury.
Additionally, there were no national safety standards for the workplace, so work safety regulations and
remedies to injured workers were uneven.
The WARN allows for an employer to escape the notice requirements if:
,The plant shutdown or layoffs are due to a natural disaster
The firm experiences a severe and unforeseen loss of capital
When the company is faltering and giving notice would prevent obtaining capital to continue operations
WARN requires employers with over
100 employees to provide detailed written advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs to
affected employees, union bargaining units, and state and local government officials at least 60 days
prior to the closing. Employers are prohibited from plant closings or mass layoffs until the end of the 60-
day notice period.
In a retaliation referral claim, a former employee must show that
the negative referral provided by the former employer was in response to an employee's claims of
discrimination or acts of whistleblowing. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the term "employees" as
used in the retaliation section of Title VII extends to former employees.
According to a survey done by Salary.com, some 90 percent of employee performance appraisals
were inadequate.1
Esterquest v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton
- case involving disparate treatment discrimination arising out of performance appraisals actually
involving a lack of appraisals.
- a woman lawyer in a prestigious New York City law firm was able to show that over a twelve-year
period she received, after repeated requests, only one performance appraisal before she was
terminated, while during the same time period two younger male counterparts each received nine
appraisals. Moreover, the sole appraisal Esterquest received did not include a plan for remediation of
her performance deficiencies or a path to promotion, which was included in other employee's
evaluations. Under these circumstances she was able to show age and gender discrimination.
The IRCA prohibits employers from discriminating in employment on the basis of nation of origin or
citizenship, with some exceptions. Unlike Title VII, the IRCA does allow an employer to discriminate in
favor of a citizen over a legal alien when both are equally qualified. There are two bona fide
occupational qualifications which come into play under IRCA:
Citizenship for specific federal jobs and public policy functions
English proficiency to the standard necessary to carry out essential business operations
United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979); Johnson v. Santa Clara County Transportation
Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
- the Supreme Court has provided some leeway in using race and gender in employment decisions
without invoking reverse discrimination. For example, in voluntary affirmative action plans, private
employers may lawfully use race and gender in employment decisions where there has been a historical
"manifest imbalance" in the workplace when that effort is limited in duration and scope and when it is
not a quota system
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, __ U.S. __(2014)
,- reverse discrimination suit
- the Supreme Court upheld Michigan's voter-approved Proposal 2, which made unlawful any
discrimination or preferential treatment based upon a class characteristic in public education,
government contracting, and public employment. This had the specific effect of undoing Michigan's
university admissions rubrics, which allowed for consideration of race and gender in evaluating college
applications. The general effect of this was to put into question whether other university applications
systems nationwide, which allow for preferences, are valid
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009)
- candidates for firefighting positions in New Haven, which was seeking to promote the hiring of non-
white firefighters, were required to complete a validated qualification test. When the test revealed that
non-white applicants did not perform as well as white candidates, the city threw out the test as a
qualifying mechanism and started the hiring process anew.
- The Supreme Court held that New Haven had violated Title VII because the test was valid and the
decision not to use it was "race-conscious."
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (Bakke)
- a white medical school applicant challenged the University of California at Davis' policy of setting aside
16% of admission spots for "disadvantaged" minority applicants who could also compete in the standard
applicant pool. Mr. Bakke was qualified to be admitted, and he argued that the strict 16% standard was
an impermissible quota and unfair.
- While not dismissing the principles of AA, the Supreme Court agreed that the AA method used by the
university was unlawful, as it gave an unwarranted advantage to minority applicants.
Rigid quotas or reserving positions for a specific protected class of individuals who are less qualified
is not permissible.
Sometimes a contractor will run afoul of federal anti-discrimination statutes or Executive Order 11246.
The Department of Labor may
cancel a contract or debar a contractor from participating in bidding for future contracts. Additionally,
the DOL may ask the attorney general to seek equitable relief to enforce orders, seek that the
Department of Justice pursue criminal penalties where fraud is involved, publish the names of offending
contractors, and/or recommend to the EEOC that judicial proceedings be commenced under Title VII.
Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC
- in 1964 the New York State Commission for Human Rights had determined the sheet metal workers'
union had systematically excluded African-Americans from the union and from obtaining
apprenticeships.
- After 18 years of not complying with court orders to stop discrimination, the Supreme Court affirmed a
lower court order, entered in 1975, imposing an AA plan remedy upon the union which required a fund
be set up, and other action taken, to assist in reaching the goal of 29 percent non-white membership in
the union. The duty to comply with imposed AA plans evaporates once the problem has been addressed.
, The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), within the Department of Labor, oversees
the
regulation of AA. The OFCCP conducts extensive research on worker demographics and creates,
implements, and enforces a myriad of regulations related to implementing the goals of AA.
The Vietnam Era Veteran Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 carries the same purpose for veteran
workers. Amendments to the act require that
federal contracts entered into after 1 December, 2003, and worth more than $100,000 require
contractors and subcontractors to undertake AA for specified categories of veterans, which includes a
priority referral requirement for employment openings. This legislation also requires employers to
report on the number of current employees who are veterans.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits federal government contractors from discriminating on the
basis of disability. This act requires that contractors, including subcontractors, with
fifty or more employees and contracts valued at $50,000 or more must take "affirmative action to
employ qualified individuals with disabilities."
Executive Order 11246 requires that
any federal contract for services with a value over $10,000 must include anondiscrimination clause with
which the contractor must comply.
Philadelphia Plan
In 1969, President Nixon authorized the implementation of the Philadelphia Plan, which, for the first
time, required contractors to establish specific goals and timetables for correcting imbalances in
employment practices. The creation of preferences and goals has led to the forty-year-old debate over
whether AA is simply a way to establish unlawful quotas for race, ethnicity, or gender.
Executive Order 11246
In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, which required that contractors and their
subcontractors doing business with the federal government must have a nondiscrimination clause in
contracts and abide by its terms. The Order requires government contractors to "take affirmative
action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment.
Executive Order 10925
On March 6, 1961, Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which mandated that managers of federally-
funded projects "take affirmative action" to eliminate bias in employment practices. This changed the
effort to eliminate employment discrimination from the passive to the active.
Executive Order 8802
On 25 June, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which declared that full
participation in national defense programs by all U.S. citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, or
national origin was federal government policy.
