Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Test Bank For Employment Law For Business 7th Edition Dawn Bennett Alexander Download
Test Bank For Employment Law For Business 7th Edition Dawn Bennett Alexander Download
Chapter 07
National Origin Discrimination
True/False Questions
1. An employee may have a national origin discrimination claim if the worker is simply
perceived to be of a certain origin, even if the individual is not, in fact, of that origin.
Answer: True
LO: 07-02 Define the prima facie case for national origin discrimination under Title VII.
Topic: Regulatory Overview
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Feedback: In addition to national origin encompassing an employee’s place of birth, it also
includes ethnic characteristics or origins, as well as physical, linguistic, or cultural traits closely
associated with a national origin group. It also may serve as the basis for a national origin
discrimination claim if an employee is perceived by an employer to be a member of a particular
national origin group, whether or not the individual is in fact of that origin.
2. In the case of Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., the court followed the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) guidelines and held that the English-only rule in the
workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Answer: False
LO: 07-03 Explain the legal status surrounding “English-only policies” in the workplace.
Topic: Regulatory Overview
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Feedback: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) takes the position that
English-only rules applied at all times or only applied to certain foreign speakers are
presumptively discriminatory, although the courts have not always agreed with that approach.
In the case of Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., the court rejected the argument that the policy was
discriminatory because it denied Spanish-speaking employees the ability to express their
cultural heritage, denied them a privilege of employment enjoyed by speakers of English as a
first language, and created an atmosphere of inferiority and intimidation. The court stated that
“Title VII is not meant to protect against rules that merely inconvenience some employees,
even if the inconvenience falls regularly on a protected class.”
3. The discharge of a teacher from her services is upheld when, although fluent in English, she
spoke with such a thick accent that her students found it difficult to follow her.
Answer: True
LO: 07-03 Explain the legal status surrounding “English-only policies” in the workplace.
Topic: Regulatory Overview
7-1
© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not
authorized for sale or distribution in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated,
forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 07 – National Origin Discrimination
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Feedback: An employer is permitted to choose not to hire or promote an employee to a position
that requires clear oral communication in English if the employee’s accent substantially affects
his or her ability to communicate clearly. For example, where a teacher was fluent in English
but spoke with such a thick accent that her students had a difficult time understanding her, her
discharge was upheld.
4. The right to speak one’s native language when the employee is bilingual is not an immutable
characteristic that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects.
Answer: True
LO: 07-03 Explain the legal status surrounding “English-only policies” in the workplace.
Topic: Regulatory Overview
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Feedback: A job requirement that an employee must be fluent in English is legal if fluency is
required to perform the work effectively. It has been held that the right to speak one’s native
language when the employee is bilingual is not an immutable characteristic that Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects.
6. Discrimination based upon citizenship status, or “alienage,” is prohibited under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Answer: False
LO: 07-04 Describe a claim for harassment based on national origin and discuss how it might
be different from one based on other protected classes.
Topic: Harassment on the Basis of National Origin
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
7-2
© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not
authorized for sale or distribution in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated,
forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 07 – National Origin Discrimination
8. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal aliens are permitted access to certain
government and other positions by statute.
Answer: False
LO: 07-05 Identify the difference between citizenship and national origin.
Topic: Citizenship and the Immigration Reform and Control Act
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Feedback: Title VII’s (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibition against discrimination on
the basis of national origin does not necessarily prohibit discrimination on the basis of
citizenship; this only occurs where citizenship discrimination “has the purpose or effect” of
national origin discrimination or where it is pretext for national origin discrimination. In fact,
legal aliens (noncitizens residing in the United States) are often restricted from access to certain
government or other positions by statute.
9. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) prohibits discrimination against legal
aliens in favor of U.S. citizens.
Answer: False
LO: 07-06 Explain the extent of protection under the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Topic: Citizenship and the Immigration Reform and Control Act
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
7-3
© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not
authorized for sale or distribution in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated,
forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 07 – National Origin Discrimination
Feedback: The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), in contrast to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, does prohibit employers in certain circumstances from discriminating
against employees on the basis of their citizenship or intended citizenship, and from hiring
those not legally authorized for employment in the United States. However, the IRCA does
allow discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against legal aliens.
10. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) has established only civil penalties and
no criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens.
Answer: False
LO: 07-06 Explain the extent of protection under the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Topic: Citizenship and the Immigration Reform and Control Act
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Feedback: The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) established civil and criminal
penalties for hiring illegal aliens. Generally, fines are not imposed for paperwork violations
alone or for employment of aliens whose illegal status was unknown, unless employers refused
to comply or other egregious factors existed.
11. The Fair Labor Standards Act protects undocumented workers from abuse at workplaces.
Answer: True
LO: 07-06 Explain the extent of protection under the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Topic: Citizenship and the Immigration Reform and Control Act
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Feedback: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) set forth that employers’
liability for monetary remedies irrespective of a worker’s unauthorized status promotes the goal
of deterring unlawful discrimination without undermining the purposes of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The Fair Labor Standards Act also protects undocumented
workers from abuse.
12. Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act’s (IRCA) anti-discrimination provisions,
employers with 4 to 14 employees are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of national
origin.
Answer: True
LO: 07-06 Explain the extent of protection under the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Topic: Citizenship and the Immigration Reform and Control Act
Blooms: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Feedback: Employers not subject to Title VII’s (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibitions
because of their small size may still be sufficiently large to be covered by the Immigration
Reform and Control Act’s anti-discrimination provisions; those employers with 4 to 14
employees are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of national origin; and employers
with four or more employees may not discriminate on the basis of citizenship.
7-4
© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not
authorized for sale or distribution in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated,
forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 07 – National Origin Discrimination
13. Thomas hires an alien worker named Desai to work for his firm. Before being employed,
Desai is required to produce the statutorily required documents demonstrating his right to work
in the United States. However, because of Desai’s qualifications and the cost benefits Thomas’s
company will incur if he is hired, Thomas decides to employ Desai without asking him to
provide the necessary documents. Which of the following holds true in this case?
A) Thomas cannot be held liable for unlawful employment practice because he can establish an
affirmative defense by showing that Desai’s documents were not verified for a legitimate
reason.
B) Thomas cannot be held liable as it is an unfair immigration-related practice for a person or
other entity to verify if an individual is an authorized alien or an illegal immigrant.
C) Thomas can be held liable under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for
employing an individual without verifying his or her employment eligibility.
D) Thomas can be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if Desai has
any criminal lawsuits filed against him.
Answer: C
LO: 07-01 Describe the impact and implications of the changing demographics of the American
workforce.
Topic: Chez/Casa/Fala/Wunderbar Uncle Sam
Blooms: Apply
AACSB: Reflective Thinking
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Feedback: Thomas can be held liable for an unlawful employment practice under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire
for employment in the United States an individual without verification of his or her
employment eligibility.
14. Nesbitt hires Francois, an alien working in the United States with the legal authority to do so.
One month later, Francois loses his right to work in the United States. Which of the following
holds true in this case?
A) Nesbitt’s continued employment of Francois cannot constitute a violation of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) under any circumstance.
B) Nesbitt’s continued employment of Francois will constitute national origin discrimination
against individuals with American citizenship.
C) Nesbitt’s continued employment of Francois will constitute a violation of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA) if Nesbitt knows that Francois has become an unauthorized
alien.
D) Nesbitt’s continued employment of Francois is not unlawful because it is an unfair
immigration-related practice for a person to discriminate against any individual based on their
national origin.
Answer: C
LO: 07-01 Describe the impact and implications of the changing demographics of the American
workforce.
Topic: Chez/Casa/Fala/Wunderbar Uncle Sam
7-5
© 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not
authorized for sale or distribution in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated,
forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his
or her labor or service as aforesaid.
Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions of
the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject of this ordinance, be,
and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void.
Done by the United States in Congress assembled, the thirteenth
day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-seven, and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth.
Charles Thompson,
Secretary.
Constitution of the United States of America,
ARTICLE I.
ARTICLE II.
ARTICLE III.
ARTICLE IV.
Section I.—Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in
which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the
Effect thereof.
Section II.—The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State,
shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which
he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having
Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or
Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but
shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or
Labour may be due.
Section iii. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this
Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the
Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the
Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the
Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the
Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful
Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property
belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall
be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of
any particular State.
Section iv. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of
them against Invasion, and on Application of the Legislature, or of
the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic Violence.
ARTICLE V.
Article VI.
Article VII.
Nathaniel Gorham,
Massachusetts.
Rufus King.
Wil: Livingston,
Wm. Paterson,
New Jersey.
David Brearley,
Jona. Dayton.
B. Franklin,
Robt. Morris,
Tho: Fitzsimons,
James Wilson,
Pennsylvania.
Thomas Mifflin,
Geo: Clymer,
Jared Ingersoll,
Gouv: Morris.
Geo: Read,
John Dickinson,
Delaware. Jaco: Broom,
Gunning Bedford, Jr.,
Richard Bassett.
James M’Henry,
Maryland. Danl. Carroll,
Dan: of St. Thos: Jenifer.
John Blair,
Virginia.
James Madison, Jr.
Wm. Blount,
North Carolina. Hu. Williamson,
Rich’d Dobbs Spaight.
J. Rutledge,
Charles Pinckney,
South Carolina.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney,
Pierce Butler.
William Few,
Georgia.
Abr. Baldwin.