Solution Manual
Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition,
Dawn Bennett-Alexander, Chapters 1 - 2
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 The Regulation of Employment
Chapter 2 The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring
Legal Concepts
Chapter 3 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Chapter 4 Legal Construction of the Employment Environment Chapter 5
Affirmative Action
Chapter 6 Race and Color Discrimination
Chapter 7 National Origin Discrimination
Chapter 8 Gender Discrimination Chapter 9
Sexual Harassment
Chapter 10 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Chapter 11
Religious Discrimination
Chapter 12 Age Discrimination Chapter 13
Disability Discrimination
Chapter 14 The Employee’s Right to Privacy and Management of Personal
Information
Chapter 15 Labor Law 857
Chapter 16 Selected Employment Benefits and Protections
Chapter 1
, The Regulation of Employment
Chapter Objective
The student is introduced to the regulatory environment of the employment relationship. The
chapter examines whether regulation is actually necessary or beneficial or if, perhaps, the
relationship would fare better with less governmental intervention. The concepts of ―freedom‖
to contract in the regulatory employment environment and non-compete agreements are
discussed. Since the regulations and case law discussed in this text rely on an individual‘s
classification as an employer or an employee, those definitions are delineated and explored.
Learning Objectives
(Click on the icon following the learning objective to be linked to the location in the outlinewhere
the chapter addresses that particular objective.)
At the conclusion of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Describe the balance between the freedom to contract and the current
regulatory environment for employment.
2. Identify who is subject to which employment laws and understand the implication of eachof
these laws for both the employer and employee.
3. Delineate the risks to the employer caused by employee misclassification.
4. Explain the difference between and employee and an independent contractor and the
tests that help us in that determination.
5. Articulate the various ways in which the concept ―employer‖ is defined by the
various employment-related regulations.
6. Describe the permissible parameters of non-compete agreements.
Detailed Chapter Outline
Scenarios—Points for Discussion
, Scenario qOne: qThis qscenario qoffers qan qopportunity qto qreview qthe qdistinctions qbetween qan
q employee qand qan qindependent qcontractor qdiscussed qin qthe qchapter q(see q―The qDefinition
qof q Employee,‖ qparticularly qExhibits q1.3–1.5). qDiscuss qthe q IRS q20-factor q analysis, qas qit
qapplies qto q Dalia‘s qposition. qIn qlight qof qthe qlow qlevel qof qcontrol qthat qDalia qhad qover
qher qfees qand qher qwork q process, qand qthe qlimits qupon qher qchoice qof qclients, qstudents
qshould qcome qto qthe qconclusion qthat q Dalia qis qan qemployee q(therefore, qeligible qto qfile
qan qunemployment qclaim), qrather qthan qan q independent qcontractor.
Scenario qTwo: qSoraya qwould qnot qhave qa qcause qof qaction qthat qwould qbe qrecognized qby
qthe qEEOC. q Review qthe qsection q―The qDefinition qof q‗Employer‘‖ qwith qstudents, qand qdiscuss
qthe qrationale qthat q determines qthe qstatus qof qa qsupervisor qvis-à-vis qanti-discrimination
qlegislation. qBecause qSoraya qis q Soraya‘s qsupervisor, qnot qher qemployer, qhe qcannot qbe
qthe qtarget qof qan qEEOC qclaim q of qsexual q harassment.
CCC, qSoraya‘s qemployer, qwould qbe qvulnerable qto qan qEEOC qclaim qif qthe qcompany qlacked
qor qfailedto q follow qa qsystem qfor qemployee qredress qof qdiscrimination qgrievances. qHowever,
qin qthis qcase, q CCC q appears qto qhave qa qviable qanti-discrimination qpolicy qthat qit qadhered
qto qdiligently; q consequently, qSoraya q would qbe qunlikely qto qwin qa qdecision qin qher qfavor.
qThe qcourt qin q Williams qv. qBanning q(1995) qoffered qthe q following qrationale qfor qits qdecision
qin qa qsimilar qcase:
―She qhas qan qemployer qwho qwas qsensitive qand qresponsive qto qher qcomplaint. qShe
qcan qtake q comfort qin qthe qknowledge qthat qshe qcontinues qto qwork q for qthis qcompany,
qwhile qher qharasser q does qnot qand qthat qthe qcompany's qprompt qaction qis qlikely qto
qdiscourage qother qwould qbe q harassers. qThis qis qprecisely qthe qresult qTitle qVII qwas
qmeant qto qachieve.‖
Scenario qThree: qStudents qshould qdiscuss qwhether qor qnot qMya qnon-compete qagreement qis
qlikely qtobe q found qreasonable qby qa qcourt, qand qelaborate qthe qaspects qof qthe qagreement
qthat qMya qmight qcontest qas q unreasonable q(see qsection qbelow, q―Covenants qNot qto
qCompete‖). qDoes qMya qhave qa qpersuasive q argument qthat qthe qterms qof qher qnon-compete
qagreement qare qunreasonable qin qscope qor q duration?
Might qshe qhave qgrounds qto qclaim qthat qthe qagreement qprohibits qher qfrom qmaking qa q living?
Given qthe qdiversity qof qstate qlaws qregulating qnon-compete qagreements, qdiscuss qthe qrange
qof qlegal q restrictions qthat qmight qapply qto qMya‘s qparticular qagreement qwith qher
qemployer. qAs qan qemployeewho q works qacross qseveral qstates, qMya‘s qdefense qmay
qdepend qupon qthe qpresence—and qspecific q language—of qa qforum qselection qclause qin qher
qnon-compete qagreement. qConsider qwhat qlanguage q would qbe qmore qlikely qto qprovide qNan
qwith qa qstrong qdefense qagainst qthe qbreach qof qcontract qclaim.
Mya qmight qalso qargue qthat qthe qcompany‘s qclient qlist qis qavailable qthrough qpublic qmeans,
qand q therefore, qher qaccess qto qthis qlist qshould qnot qbe qprohibited.
General qLecture qNote qfor qEmployment qLaw qCourse
In qorder qto qteach qthis qcourse, qinstructors qhave qfound qthat qstudents qmust qbe qmade qto qfeel
qrelatively q comfortable qwith qtheir qpeers. qInstructors qwill qbe qasking qthe qstudents qto qbe
qhonest qand qto qstay qin q their qtruth, qeven qat qtimes qwhen qthey qfeel qthat qtheir qopinion qon
qone qof qthese qmatters qwill qnot qbe
