Employment Law For Business 9th Edition Bennett Alexander Test Bank Full Chapter PDF

Employment Law for Business 9th
Edition Bennett-Alexander Test Bank

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/employment-law-for-business-9th-edition-bennett-alexander-test-bank/
Employment Law for Business, 9e (Bennett)
Chapter 8 Gender Discrimination
1) Glass ceilings prevent women from moving into lateral positions that may lead to higher
advancement.
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: "Glass ceilings" prevent women from moving up higher in the workplace. "Glass
walls" prevent women from moving laterally into areas that lead to higher advancement.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Topic: Statutory Basis
Learning Objective: 08-01 Recite Title VII and other laws relating to gender discrimination.
Bloom's: Remember
AACSB: Analytical Thinking
Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation
2) Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was common for states to have laws that limited or
prohibited women from working at certain jobs, under the theory that such laws were for the
protection of women.
Answer: TRUE
Explanation: Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was common for states to have laws that
limited or prohibited women from working at certain jobs, under the theory that such laws were for
the protection of women. Unfortunately, those jobs also tended to have higher wages.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Topic: Does it Really Exist?
Learning Objective: 08-02 Understand the background of gender discrimination and how we
know it still exists.
Bloom's: Remember
1
Copyright ©2019 McGraw-Hill
3) A job application question such as, "what is your maiden name" is permissible because the
employer needs to verify the applicant's job history.
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: Title VII and state fair-employment-practice laws regarding gender cover the full
scope of the employment relationship. Unless it is a BFOQ, gender may not be the basis of any
decision related to employment. This includes asking questions on an application that are only
asked of one gender. For example, for background-check purposes asking the applicant's maiden
name, rather than simply asking all applicants if there is another name they may have used.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Topic: Gender Discrimination in General
Learning Objective: 08-03 List the different ways in which gender discrimination is manifested
in the workplace.
Bloom's: Remember
4) The Lewisburg Fire Department advertisement advertises for individuals to be a part of its next
academy class. The ad states that applicants must be at least 5'8", and must be capable of carrying
at least 100 lbs up a series of 6 steps. The Lewisburg Fire Department will not have any Title VII
gender discrimination issues since neither criteria is gender related.
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: In the Dothard case, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with
whether Title VII's gender discrimination provision applied to the seemingly neutral criteria of
height and weight restrictions, which had long been an accepted basis for screening applicants for
certain types of jobs such as prison guards, police officers, and firefighters, even though there was
little or no legitimate reason for the criteria. The Court decided that Title VII did, in fact, apply to
such facially neutral policies when they screened out women (later cases extended this standard to
shorter and slighter ethnicities as well) at an unacceptable rate and were not shown to be directly
correlated to ability to do the job.
Difficulty: 2 Medium
Topic: Gender Issues
Learning Objective: 08-04 Analyze a situation and determine if there are gender issues that may
result in employer liability.
Bloom's: Apply
AACSB: Reflective Thinking
2
5) Gender-plus discrimination refers to discrimination based on sexual orientation and
transgenderism.
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: "Gender-plus" discrimination is discrimination based on gender and some other
factor, such as pregnancy, marital status, or having children under a certain age.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Topic: "Gender-Plus" Discrimination
Learning Objective: 08-05 Define fetal protection policies, gender-plus discrimination,
workplace lactation issues, and gender-based logistical concerns.
Bloom's: Remember
6) Minnie, a Hispanic employee, is not permitted to interview for a job opening in her company's
accounting department, even though she is qualified for the position. Minnie is likely a victim of
"gender-plus" discrimination (because she is a Hispanic female).
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: There are some situations in which the employer may permit the hiring of women
but not if there are other factors present—for example, no hiring of women who are pregnant, are
married, are over a certain age, have children under a certain age, or are unmarried with children.
This is "gender-plus" discrimination. Minnie's case seems to represent gender discrimination, or
possibly discrimination based on race or national origin.
Bloom's: Understand
7) If a pregnant employee is unable to perform her job because of her pregnancy, the employer
should treat her just as any other employee who is temporarily unable to perform job requirements.
Answer: TRUE
Explanation: If an employee is temporarily unable to perform the duties of the job because of
pregnancy, then the law requires that the inability to perform be the issue, not the fact that the
employee is pregnant. The employee therefore should be treated just as any other employee who is
temporarily unable to perform job requirements.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Bloom's: Remember
3
8) Employers have considerable leeway in setting dress codes. Thus, a policy that requires men to
wear normal business attire in the workplace, and women to wear smocks is permissible if the
employer can state a justification (such as preventing damage to the female employee's clothing).
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: Courts have not permitted requiring male employees to wear "normal business
attire" and women to wear uniforms, though both performed the same duties. The court found
"there is a natural tendency to assume that the uniformed women have a lesser professional status
than their male colleagues attired in normal business clothes."
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Topic: Grooming Codes
Learning Objective: 08-06 Differentiate between legal and illegal grooming policies.
Bloom's: Remember
9) Fetal protection policies are designed to protect pregnant employees or their fetuses. They do
not provide protection for men, even where a man may be adversely impacted by the same
condition.
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: Fetal protection policies are policies adopted by an employer that limit or prohibit
employees from performing certain jobs or working in certain areas of the workplace because of
the potential harm presented to pregnant employees, their fetuses, or the reproductive system or
capacity of employees. Where fetal protection policies apply only to women and not men when
both are shown to be adversely affected by the conditions or when they take away job
discrimination protection from a female employee rather than letting her make her own decisions,
it can violate the law.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Topic: Fetal Protection Policies
Bloom's: Remember
4
10) Under the Equal Pay Act, the content of the job, rather than the job title or description,
determines the comparison of whether two jobs are substantially the same.
Answer: TRUE
Explanation: Under the Equal Pay Act, the content of the job, rather than the job title or
description, determines the comparison of whether two jobs are substantially the same. For
instance, if a hospital's male orderlies and female aides perform substantially the same job, they
should receive the same pay, despite the difference in job titles.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Topic: Equal Pay and Comparable Worth
Learning Objective: 08-08 Distinguish between equal pay and comparable worth and discuss
proposed legislation.
Bloom's: Remember
11) Gender is often accepted by the courts as a bona fide occupational qualification (BOFQ)
defense.
Answer: FALSE
Explanation: Title VII permits gender to be used as a bona fide occupational qualification
(BFOQ) under certain limited circumstances. Under EEOC guidelines, a BFOQ may be used when
there is a legitimate need for authenticity such as for the part of a female in a theater or film
production. More often than not, when employers have attempted to use BFOQ as a defense to
gender discrimination, courts have found the defense inapplicable.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Topic: Gender Realities
Learning Objective: 08-07 List common gender realities at odds with common bases for illegal
workplace determinations.
Bloom's: Remember
5
12) In the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., the Supreme Court held that
Lilly Ledbetter could not sue for gender discrimination in pay because the statute of limitations
expired 180 days from the initial discriminatory event, which had occurred years before.
Answer: TRUE
Explanation: In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., the Supreme Court held that
Lilly Ledbetter could not sue because the statute of limitations was 180 days after the original act.
The decision was roundly criticized by employees and lauded by business. Congress immediately
took issue with the court's decision and the next month introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
to amend Title VII to allow the statute of limitations to start each time a paycheck is issued based
on the discriminatory pay.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Bloom's: Remember
6
13) Examples of gender bias in the workplace include all of the following except:
A) a female employee is required to wear make-up at work pursuant to a dress code policy
B) pay rates that differ significantly between similarly qualified male and female employees
C) a female employee is denied a promotion because she missed several days of work to care for
sick children
D) a male employee is denied a leave of absence to care for his newborn daughter
Answer: A
Explanation: As women have increasingly entered the workforce since passage of Title VII, the
focus of claims of gender discrimination has more recently shifted away from hiring
discrimination toward on-the-job issues such as equal pay, promotions, harassment, pregnancy
leave, lactation policies, caregiver responsibilities, and domestic violence. An interesting case
arose when Hurrah's Casino in Reno, Nevada, instituted a new dress code that required female
employees to wear makeup. The "Personal Best" program "specified the makeup as foundation or
powder, blush, lipstick and mascara, applied precisely the same way every day to match a
photograph held by the supervisor." The only requirement for men was that they not wear makeup
of any kind and keep their hair and nails trimmed. Darlene Jespersen, a bartender who had been
employed by the casino for 21 years and had an excellent work history, was "highly offended she
had to doll herself up to look like a hooker." She was terminated for failing to comply with the
policy. Jespersen argued that the cosmetics cost hundreds of dollars per year and took a good deal
of time to apply and therefore created an unequal burden on female employees. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the policy, saying "there is no evidence in the record in support of
[Jespersen's] contention that cosmetics can cost hundreds of dollars per year and that applying
them requires a significant investment of time."
in the workplace.
Bloom's: Understand
7
14) The 1991 Civil Rights Act created the Glass Ceiling Commission to:
A) eliminate discrimination based on a person's affinity orientation.
B) fix a cap on the compensation provided to top managers of publicly held companies.
C) investigate the barriers to female and minority advancement in the workplace.
D) protect transgender employees from discrimination in the workplace.
Answer: C
Explanation: The 1991 Civil Rights Act called for the establishment of a Glass Ceiling
Commission to investigate the barriers to female and minority advancement in the workplace and
suggest ways to combat the situation. The commission reported that while women have gained
entry into the workforce in substantial numbers, once there they face all but invisible barriers to
promotion into top ranks.
Bloom's: Understand
15) Glass walls refer to:

A) men entering traditionally female-dominated professions such as teaching and nursing.
B) workplace conditions and stereotyping that result in women always being closely observed no
matter what they do.
C) barriers that prevent women from moving laterally into areas that lead to higher advancement.
D) women being brought in to help a company in desperate crisis.
Answer: C
Explanation: The Glass Ceiling Commission reported that while women have gained entry into
the workforce in substantial numbers, once there they face all but invisible barriers to promotion
into top ranks. Glass walls prevent women from moving laterally into areas that lead to higher
advancement.
Bloom's: Understand
8
16) Fetal protection policies are designed to do all of the following except:
A) require employees to wear protective gear or otherwise to minimize exposure to substances that
have a potential for harm to the reproductive system
B) prohibit female employees from performing certain jobs if pregnant because of the potential
harm to the fetus
C) require employees to perform tasks in a way that minimizes risk to the reproductive system
D) limit the job opportunities of women of child-bearing age
Answer: D
capacity of employees.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Bloom's: Remember
17) Which of the following is NOT true of family responsibility discrimination?

A) it has a disparate impact on women
B) it can lead to failure to promote or train in the workplace
C) it affects men and women equally
D) it is also known as "care giver bias"
Answer: C
Explanation: In 2007, the EEOC issued guidelines on "caregiver responsibility" discrimination,
also known as "caregiver bias" or "family responsibility discrimination" (FRD). The EEOC issued
the guidelines because it realized the growing issue of the disparate impact that the conflict
between work and family had on both male and female employees though it noted that since most
care giving responsibilities fall on women, such discrimination has a disparate impact on them.
That is, because of their caregiving responsibilities, women are more likely to suffer adverse
employment actions taken against them such as diminishing workplace responsibilities, failure to
promote or train, exclusion from decision-making channels, or other actions coming from the idea
that if employees have caregiving responsibilities, then they are less likely to be dependable,
competent employees who can live up to their full workplace potential.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Bloom's: Remember
9
18) Mr. Tompkins of Lawlor & Tompkins Law Firm was conducting an interview for a junior
associate attorney. He asked Macy, an applicant, if she was married and when she intended, if ever,
to have children. His second interview was with Scott. He did not ask Scott either of these
questions. Which of the following is true in this situation?
A) Macy has a claim for gender discrimination as it is illegal to ask questions in a job interview
that are only asked of one gender.
B) Macy does not have a claim for gender discrimination because she was not yet employed by the
law firm.
C) Macy does not have a claim for gender discrimination because of the bona fide occupational
qualification defense available to employers.
D) Macy has a claim for gender discrimination only if she in unmarried.
Answer: A
Explanation: Macy has a valid claim for gender discrimination. Asking questions in an interview
that are only asked of one gender is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For
example, asking female interviewees if they have proper day care for their children and not asking
male interviewees who also have children. Or, asking female applicants about reproductive plans
and not asking males.
in the workplace.
Bloom's: Apply
19) Gender discrimination is manifested in the workplace in all of the following ways except:
A) equality in pay and promotions
B) use of a "tap on the shoulder" policy for selecting new managers
C) women denied favorable job assignments that are necessary to qualify for management
positions
D) pregnant women denied pay and/or promotions due to their condition.
Answer: A
Explanation: As women have increasingly entered the workforce since passage of Title VII, the
focus of claims of gender discrimination has more recently shifted away from hiring
discrimination toward on-the-job issues such as equal pay, promotions, harassment, pregnancy
leave, lactation policies, caregiver responsibilities, and domestic violence. Eric S. Dreiband,
EEOC general counsel, stated that this reflects "new issues erupting in a diverse workforce. As
blatant discrimination decreased, other areas like harassment increase.
in the workplace.
Bloom's: Understand
10
20) Safe-T Securi-T Systems hires both male and female sales representatives. However, the
company mostly promotes male employees to the position of senior sales executive because the
job involves a lot of traveling. The management of the company believes that male employees are
more suitable than female employees for jobs that require traveling. Which of the following
statements is true in this situation?
A) Safe-T Securi-T Systems is not liable for gender discrimination because it can use bona fide
occupational qualification as a defense to any claim filed by its female employees.
B) Safe-T Securi-T Systems is not liable for gender discrimination because it employs both men
and women.
C) Safe-T Securi-T Systems is liable for gender discrimination because it is unlawful to require
one gender to work different hours or job positions for reasons not related to their ability.
D) Safe-T Securi-T Systems is liable for gender discrimination only if female employees are
expected to match their level of performance to that of male employees.
Answer: C
Explanation: Safe-T Securi-T Systems is liable for gender discrimination. Requiring one gender
to work different hours or job positions for reasons not related to their ability or availability for the
job is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Topic: Gender Discrimination in General; Gender Realities
in the workplace.; 08-07 List common gender realities at odds with common bases for illegal
Bloom's: Understand
11
21) Laura applies for the job of a firefighter. She is 5 feet 2 inches tall and weighs 110 pounds.
Laura is denied the position because she does not meet the height and weight requirements. The
fire department's height and weight requirements are:
A) discriminatory if it can be shown that the requirements are not directly correlated to ability to
do the job.
B) not discriminatory because firefighters have mostly been tall.
C) not discriminatory because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not cover jobs such as
guards, police officers, and firefighters.
D) discriminatory if it can be shown that height and weight requirements are a business necessity.
Answer: A
Explanation: The fire department's height and weight requirements are discriminatory if it can be
shown that the requirements are not directly correlated to ability to do the job. In Dothard v.
Rawlinson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did
apply to facially neutral policies when they screened out women at an unacceptable rate and were
not shown to be directly correlated to ability to do the job.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Bloom's: Apply
12
22) Katie is a qualified carpenter who works for Kent Construction Inc. Kent Construction is
losing business as most clients do not like the idea of female construction workers working on their
project. They often complain that they cannot trust the work of a female employee. On this basis,
Kent Construction fires Katie. Which of the following statements is true in this situation?
A) Kent Construction is not liable for gender discrimination because of the business necessity
defense.
B) Kent Construction is not liable for gender discrimination as it can use the bona fide
occupational qualification defense.
C) Kent Construction is liable for gender discrimination as customer preference is not a legitimate
reason to discriminate against employees.
D) Kent Construction is liable for gender discrimination because Katie was hired for a job that
requires being male as a bona fide occupational qualification.
Answer: C
Explanation: Kent Construction is liable for gender discrimination as customer preference is not
a legitimate reason to discriminate against employees. Customer preference is not a legitimate and
protected reason to treat otherwise-qualified employees differently based on gender.
Bloom's: Apply
13
23) Allyson, a mid-level manager at Oxy-Chemicals has always had female assistants and is
concerned that they are much less qualified than their male counterparts. When the assistant
position opens up, she instructs Human Resources to hire a male assistant for her, and will not even
interview female candidates. Is Allyson and/or Oxy-Chemicals in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act?
A) Allyson is in violation of Title VII, but not Oxy (via human resources). Human resources is
only following directions from Allyson.
B) Neither Allyson nor Oxy are in violation of Title VII because Allyson is only a mid-level
manager and this is not a company policy.
C) Both Allyson and Oxy can be found liable of a Title VII violation for not considering qualified
female candidates for the job.
D) Only Oxy human resources can be found in violation of Title VII because they know or should
have known that it is not appropriate to consider only male candidates for the position.
Answer: D
Explanation: Is an employer in violation of Title VII if the employer does not permit an employee
of a certain gender to deal with a customer because the customer does not wish to deal with
someone of that gender and the employee is thereby denied valuable work experience or earning
potential? What if male employees on a construction site don't want a female to work with them?
The answer is, as it was with race, yes, the employer is in violation of Title VII and can be held
liable to the employee for gender discrimination. Customer or employee preference is not a
legitimate and protected reason to treat otherwise-qualified employees differently based on
gender.
Bloom's: Understand
14
24) Marcus, a prolific shoe buyer, refuses to be assisted by male store clerks. The owner of Your
Shoe Town, therefore, informs his staff that only female employees should attend to Marcus
because he does not want to anger a patron of his store. One of the male clerks, Austen, believes
that this is illegal gender discrimination. Also, since part of his incentive pay is based on meeting
the monthly sales target, he feels that this policy illegally denies him the opportunity to earn
incentives because of his gender. Is Austen correct?
A) Yes, because gender can never be a bona fide occupational qualification.
B) No, because gender-based customer preferences are legitimate business concerns.
C) Yes, because customer preference is not a legitimate and protected reason to treat
otherwise-qualified employees differently based on gender.
D) No, because Your Shoe Town is a private employer, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 does not apply to private employers.
Answer: C
Explanation: Not allowing male clerks to attend to Marcus or any other customers is illegal
gender discrimination because customer preference is not a legitimate and protected reason to treat
otherwise-qualified employees differently based on gender. An employer is in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if the employer does not permit an employee of a certain
gender to deal with a customer because the customer does not wish to deal with someone of that
gender and the employee is thereby denied valuable work experience or earning potential.
Bloom's: Apply
15
25) Innov8 Computers Inc., a U.S.-based company, has its operations in Kiribati, a developing
country. The culture of the country does not permit women to deal with men professionally,
though there is no law limiting women to jobs that do not require much interaction with men.
Sarah, a U.S. citizen working for Innov8 Computers in Kiribati, is denied a promotion to the
position of senior client manager because the job would require Sarah to interact with men inside
and outside the company, and this would violate the cultural norms of Kiribati. Sarah believes this
to be gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is she correct?
A) No, because Title VII does not apply to American-owned or -controlled companies doing
business outside the United States such as Innov8 Computers.
B) No, because customer preference and cultural norms are a legitimate and protected reason to
treat otherwise-qualified employees differently based on gender.
C) Yes, because Innov8 Computers is required to comply with Title VII unless doing so would
cause the company to actually violate the law of the country in which the business is located.
D) Yes, because gender cannot be used as a bona fide occupational qualification under any
circumstances.
Answer: C
Explanation: This is gender discrimination because Innov8 Computers is required to comply with
Title VII unless doing so would cause the company to actually violate the law of the country in
which the business is located. An employer in a country whose mores may not permit women to
deal with men professionally must still comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
unless doing so would cause the company to actually violate the law of the country in which the
business is located.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Bloom's: Apply
16
26) The police chief of the city of Grande Coast reassigns female patrol officers away from high
crime areas because people living in such areas do not want female officers guarding them. They
feel that female officers are not capable of performing their duties as efficiently as male officers.
The female police officers of Grande Coast:
A) can bring an action for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as
customer preference is not a protected reason to discriminate.
B) cannot bring an action for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
because the chief's suggestion is intended to protect the safety of female officers.
C) cannot bring an action for gender discrimination as employees working for the government are
not covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
D) can bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if the transfer results in
a pay difference between male and female officers.
Answer: A
Explanation: The female police officers of Grande Coast can bring an action for gender
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as customer preference is not a
protected reason to discriminate. Customer preference is not a legitimate and protected reason to
treat otherwise-qualified employees differently based on gender.
Bloom's: Apply
17
27) Katherine, a teacher at a private school, became pregnant before her marriage. When she
informed the management of the school about her pregnancy, she was told that she could not keep
her job because having an unwed, pregnant teacher and, later, an unwed mother is bad for the
school's reputation. Katherine feels that her employer's action is discriminatory. Which of the
following statements is true in this situation?
A) Katherine cannot bring a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the act
protects only pregnant women who are married.
B) Katherine can bring a case of gender-plus discrimination against her employer.
C) Katherine has a valid disparate impact claim against her employer.
D) Katherine cannot bring a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the act
does not cover private employers.
Answer: B
Explanation: Katherine can bring a case of gender-plus discrimination against her employer.
There are some situations in which the employer may permit the hiring of women but not if there
are other factors present—for example, no hiring of women who are pregnant, are married, are
over a certain age, have children under a certain age, or are unmarried with children. This is
"gender-plus" discrimination. Such policies are not neutral at all because males are not subject to
the same limitations.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Bloom's: Apply
18
28) A local TV station had an opening for an evening sportscaster. Yvonne, a recent graduate with
a degree in broadcast journalism, applied for the job. She was not hired on the basis that the job is
restricted to men, as it involves interviewing players on high school football teams, which requires
the sportscaster to spend a lot of time in the men's locker rooms.
A) Yvonne has no claim for gender discrimination because the TV station has a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for its job requirement.
B) Yvonne has a valid gender discrimination claim, and the bona fide occupational qualification
defense cannot be used because players can be interviewed outside the locker room.
C) Yvonne has no claim for gender discrimination because private employers are allowed to hire
and terminate per their will.
D) Yvonne has a valid claim for gender discrimination if she can prove that the TV station has
hired women for other roles that can be performed by men.
Answer: B
Explanation: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits gender to be used as a bona fide
occupational qualification (BFOQ) under certain limited circumstances. Under the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, a BFOQ may be used when there is a
legitimate need for authenticity such as for the part of a female in a theater or film production. In
this case, Yvonne has a valid claim for gender discrimination, and BFOQ cannot be used as a
defense because the interviews of the players can take place outside the locker room.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Bloom's: Apply
19
29) Fetal protection policies are:
A) legally required only if an employer has more female employees than male employees.
B) prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they apply only to women.
C) prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act if they apply equally to women and men.
D) judicially administered only when there are more male employees than female employees in a
workplace.
Answer: B
capacity of employees. Where fetal protection policies apply only to women and not men, when
both are shown to be adversely affected by the conditions calling for the policy, they will
considered to be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Bloom's: Understand
30) An employer may legitimately decide not to hire individuals of a given gender if:
A) the job requires employees of a given gender to interact with the opposite gender on a regular
basis.
B) the customers have a preference for employees of a particular gender.
C) doing so would pose a logistical hardship that involves an unreasonable financial burden on the
employer.
D) doing so would eliminate the bona fide occupational qualification defense.
Answer: C
Explanation: Employers may not forgo hiring those of a certain gender because of logistical
issues unless it involves an unreasonable financial burden—usually a matter difficult for an
employer to prove. These challenges must be resolved in a way that does not discriminate against
the employee based on gender.
Bloom's: Understand
20
31) Thom is VP of Human Resources at Windows R Us. One of his responsibilities is to hire and
fire employees, as necessary, and to make decisions on promotions within the company. The chief
of procurement position, a plum assignment, opened up and Thom began the necessary process to
fill it. Ralph and Darius, each with more than five years of service with Windows R Us, were the
"favorite" internal candidates. In addition, several external candidates seemed well-qualified for
the position. In a surprise move, Thom appointed Stella, his secretary and rumored-to-be his
girlfriend, to the position. Which of the following may be true in this scenario?
A) Ralph and Darius can likely win a discrimination lawsuit based on gender discrimination.
B) Any of the candidates who can prove they are more qualified than Stella may be able to win a
discrimination lawsuit based on favoritism.
C) The court will likely uphold Thom's decision since Title VII does not prevent preferential
treatment based on consensual romantic relationships.
D) Ralph and Darius have a Title VII claim against Windows R Us because Thom's decision was
simply unfair.
Answer: C
Explanation: Several courts have wrestled with the issue of whether it is illegal gender
discrimination under Title VII if a female who is having a relationship with a supervisor receives a
job or promotion over a qualified male who applies for the position. In Womack v. Runyon, 77 FEP
Cases 769 (11th Cir. 1998), Paul Womack, having excellent credentials, experience, and training
applied for a carrier supervisor position in Waycross, Georgia. He was unanimously selected as the
best qualified candidate by a review board, but O. M. Lee, the newly appointed postmaster of
Waycross, instead appointed Lee's paramour, Jeanine Bennett. In rejecting Womack's Title VII
claim of gender discrimination, the court held that Title VII did not cover claims of favoritism,
saying that such decisions may not be fair, but they are not illegal under Title VII. According to an
EEOC policy guidance, "Title VII does not prohibit . . . preferential treatment based upon
consensual romantic relationships. An isolated instance of favoritism toward a paramour . . . may
be unfair, but it does not [amount to] discrimination against women or men in violation of Title
VII, since both [genders] are disadvantaged for reasons other than their genders."
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Topic: Statutory Basis
Learning Objective: 08-01 Recite Title VII and other laws relating to gender discrimination.
Bloom's: Apply
21
32) The dress code for Upper Edge Cosmetics requires all employees to report to work in
uniforms. The policy also states that female employees are required to wear makeup. However, the
only requirement for men is that they keep their hair and nails trimmed. Under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, female employees at Upper Edge Cosmetics:
A) do not have a valid discrimination claim because the act does not prohibit an employer from
using gender as a basis for reasonable grooming codes.
B) do not have a valid discrimination claim because the act does not cover private employers.
C) have a valid discrimination claim because the dress code results in disparate impact against
them.
D) have a valid discrimination claim because the difference in attire is based on gender and has no
business necessity.
Answer: A
Explanation: Female employees at Upper Edge Cosmetics do not have a valid discrimination
claim because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit an employer from using
gender as a basis for reasonable grooming codes. Employers are given a good deal of leeway in
setting workplace dress codes. In making this determination, employers can use reasonable
standards of what is generally thought to be male- or female-appropriate attire in a business
setting.
Bloom's: Apply
22
33) Grooming codes may be used in the workplace. Which of the following is likely to NOT be
upheld as an acceptable grooming policy of an employer?
A) Employees must wear underwear and use deodorant. Underwear may not be exposed.
B) Men must wear suits and ties (traditional business attire), while women must wear uniforms.
C) Employees may not wear clothing with profanity or suggestive logos.
D) Clothing must be clean and neat, with no visible tears or stains.
Answer: B
Explanation: The codes can be pretty much whatever the employer wants, unless a policy
violates the law, such as being illegally discriminatory on the basis of gender. In making this
determination, employers can use reasonable standards of what is generally thought to be male- or
female-appropriate attire in a business setting. For instance, a Florida city council wanting to
"clean up," instituted a dress code requiring employees to wear underwear and use deodorant. It
also prohibited exposed underwear, clothing with "foul" language, "sexually provocative" clothes,
and piercings anywhere except the ears.
Courts also have upheld grooming codes that required, among other things, male supermarket
clerks to wear ties, female employees to not wear pants, a female attorney to "tone down" her
"flashy" attire, and male and female flight attendants to keep their weight down. Not permitted was
requiring male employees to wear "normal business attire" and women to wear uniforms, though
both performed the same duties. The court found "there is a natural tendency to assume that the
uniformed women have a lesser professional status than their male colleagues attired in normal
business clothes."
Bloom's: Understand
23
34) Cassie works for RedBug Telecommunications Inc. as a customer relationship executive.
According to the company's grooming policy, male customer relationship executives can wear
normal business attire to work, but female employees are required to wear uniforms, though both
perform the same duties. Which of the following holds true in this scenario?
A) Cassie does not have a claim for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 because RedBug Telecommunications hires both male and female employees.
B) Cassie has a valid gender discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
because female employees are being treated differently from male employees regarding attire with
no reasonable job-related justification.
C) Cassie does not have a claim for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 as long as RedBug Telecommunications can show that both male and female customer
relationship executives are paid equally.
D) Cassie has a valid gender discrimination claim because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
restricts employers from imposing grooming codes on their employees.
Answer: B
Explanation: Cassie has a valid gender discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 because female employees are being treated differently from male employees
regarding attire with no reasonable job-related justification. Title VII does not permit a weight
restriction policy applied only to the exclusively female category of flight attendants, but not the
category of male directors of passenger service, when both were in-flight employees. Also not
permitted is requiring male employees to wear "normal business attire" and women to wear
uniforms, though both perform the same duties.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Bloom's: Apply
24
35) In the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that:
A) the employer had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by imposing
sex-differentiated appearance and grooming standards on its male and female employees.
B) the claimant did not produce sufficient evidence to show that she was not given the same
opportunities to advance as her male co-workers.
C) it is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for gender stereotyping to play a
significant role in evaluating an employee's work performance.
D) it is not unlawful to have gender-based grooming policies because employers are free to
determine how to run their businesses.
Answer: C
Explanation: In the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case, Ann Hopkins, a female associate who was
refused admission as a partner in an accounting firm, brought a gender discrimination action
against the firm. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that it is a violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 for gender stereotyping to play a significant role in evaluating an employee's
work performance.
Bloom's: Understand
25
36) Which of the following is NOT true about the gap in pay between women and men?
A) The pay gap between the genders has nearly closed. Although there are some discrepancies, for
the most part men and women make equal pay for equal work.
B) The Equal Pay Act pre-dates Title VII and was designed to close the gap in wages between men
and women to achieve equality.
C) Title VII and its predecessors continue to work on the issue of equal pay for equal work,
however the gap still exists and will for some time.
D) Gender may not be the basis for paying lower wages to an employee for equal work, however
differences based on quality or quantity of production, seniority or merit systems, or any other
criteria that is not gender based may be permissible.
Answer: A
Explanation: Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment including in the area of
compensation, but even before Title VII there was legislation protecting employees against
discrimination in compensation solely on the basis of gender. The year before Title VII was
passed, the Equal Pay Act (EPA), actually part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) governing
wages and hours in the workplace, became law. Under the act, employers subject to the minimum
wage provisions of the FLSA may not use gender as a basis for paying lower wages to an employee
for equal work "on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility,
and which are performed under similar working conditions." There are exceptions. Differences in
wages are permitted if based on seniority or merit systems, on systems that measure earnings by
quantity or quality of production, or on a differential based on "any other factor other than
[gender]." To comply with the Equal Pay Act, the employer may not reduce the wage rate of the
higher-paid employees. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, the pay gap that was
supposed to be closed by the legislation actually widened at least nine times from one year to the
next since passage of the EPA.
Bloom's: Apply
26
37) Smith Paving Inc. has a contract to construct a new bypass around the city. The project is
approximately 23 miles from the employer's office. Kelly and Portia are hired to keep track of the
supplies delivered to the site. They are the only female employees working at this job site. Smith
installs a portable restroom at the construction site, but it lacks the necessary facilities required by
women and is not safe enough to be used by them. Thus, Kelly and Portia take breaks and drive
back to the office to use their office restroom. However, the foreman complains that their breaks
are too long. After the complaint, Kelly and Portia ask their employer to install a separate restroom
for women. Which of the following is true in this situation?
A) Kelly and Portia's request for a separate restroom constitutes gender discrimination, and the
employer cannot comply without being liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
B) Kelly and Portia's request for a separate restroom should be granted as not taking into
consideration legitimate differences between genders can be unlawful.
C) The employer has no legal obligation to provide separate restrooms unless state law requires it.
D) The employer can terminate Kelly and Portia for demanding a separate restroom on the basis of
bona fide occupational qualification.
Answer: B
Explanation: Not taking into consideration legitimate differences between genders that can mean
that treating them exactly the same may produce an undue hardship for the other is unlawful. This
includes refusal to provide proper restroom facilities for all employees on construction sites.
Therefore, Kelly and Portia's request for a separate restroom should be granted.
Bloom's: Apply
27
38) Per the health insurance plan provided as an employee benefit at Reindeer Technologies Inc.,
male employees and their spouses are covered under the plan. For female employees, however, the
insurance covers only them and not their spouses. Which of the following holds true in this
scenario?
A) The female employees at Reindeer Technologies Inc. do not have a valid discrimination claim
as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect employees of private employers.
B) The female employees at Reindeer Technologies Inc. do not have a valid discrimination claim
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because their spouses are expected to be covered
under an insurance plan at their respective workplaces.
C) The female employees at Reindeer Technologies Inc. have a valid discrimination claim as
providing different benefits for one gender than for another is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
D) The female employees at Reindeer Technologies Inc. have a valid discrimination claim because
gender can never be used as a bona fide occupational qualification.
Answer: C
Explanation: The female employees at Reindeer Technologies Inc. have a valid discrimination
claim as providing different benefits for one gender than for another is unlawful under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For example, providing spouses of male employees with coverage for
short-term disabilities, including pregnancy, while not providing female employees with similar
coverage for short-term disabilities for their spouses, or providing prescription coverage for
Viagra for men, but not birth control for women.
Bloom's: Apply
28
39) All of the following are ways that an employer uses pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions as a basis for treating an employee in a discriminatory manner, except:
A) The employer refuses to provide lighter duty assignments to a pregnant employee, even though
those assignments are routinely given to other employers who are temporarily disabled.
B) The employer refuses to interview or hire pregnant employees, or those who have recently
given birth.
C) The employer provides lighter duty assignments to a pregnant employee at a time that the
employee believes that the lighter duty assignments are not necessary.
D) The employer reduces the hours of a pregnant employee, making her ineligible for
employer-paid health insurance.
Answer: C
Explanation: The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits an employer from using
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions as the basis for treating an employee
differently than any other employee with a short-term disability if that employee can perform the
job. This is why in Opening Scenario 3, it is illegal for the employer to evaluate the pregnant
employee differently than it would any other. Employers illegally treat employees differently in
many ways regarding pregnancy and childbirth. For instance, the employer: Refuses to hire
pregnant applicants; terminates an employee on discovering the employee's pregnancy; does not
provide benefits to pregnant employees on an equal basis with short-term disabilities of other
employees; refuses to allow a pregnant employee to continue to work even though the employee
wishes to do so and is physically able to do so; does not provide the employee with lighter duty if
needed, when such accommodations are made for employees with other short-term disabilities;
terminates the pregnant employee by moving her to a new job title with the same pay, then
eliminates the position in a job restructuring or a reduction in force; evaluates the employee as not
having performed as well or as much as other employees when the basis for the evaluation is the
employer's own refusal or hesitation to assign equal work to the employee because the employee is
pregnant and the employer feels the need to "lighten" the employee's load, though the employee
has not requested it; does not permit the pregnant employee to be a part of the normal circle of
office culture so she becomes less aware of matters of importance to the office or current projects,
resulting in more likelihood that the employee will not be able effectively to compete with those
still within the circle.
Topic: Gender as a BFOQ
Bloom's: Understand
29
40) Padma works as a sales clerk at Lavy, an upscale cosmetic brand. Hector is also a sales clerk in
the same store. They were both hired the same year and have similar experience and qualifications.
However, Hector is routinely paid more than Padma. If Padma files a claim under the Equal Pay
Act, Padma will lose if Lavy pays:
A) based on the sales generated by each employee, and Hector generates more sales than her.
B) based on the age of an employee, and Hector is older than her.
C) Hector more because he is the only Hispanic male employee.
D) Hector more because he is a male employee, and his family members are dependent on him.
Answer: A
Explanation: Padma will lose if Lavy pays based on the sales generated by each employee, and
Hector generates more sales than her. Differences in wages are permitted under the Equal Pay Act
if based on seniority or merit systems, on systems that measure earnings by quantity or quality of
production, or on a differential based on "any other factor other than [gender]."
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Bloom's: Apply
30
41) Lily is an image technician. She reviews photographs for placement in a stock images catalog.
Her male colleagues, who also review photographs for placement in a stock images catalog, are
photo analysts. She complains that she is paid less for doing the same work as them. Which of the
following is true in this situation?
A) Lily will prevail in a claim under the Equal Pay Act if both of the jobs require equal skill, effort,
and responsibility.
B) Lily will not prevail in a claim under the Equal Pay Act because the law allows for unequal pay
when the job titles are different.
C) Lily will not prevail in a claim under the Equal Pay Act as pay information is meant to be
confidential, and she has broken the law by finding out what her colleagues are paid.
D) Lily will prevail in a claim under the Equal Pay Act only if she can show that her expenses are
more than that of her male colleagues.
Answer: A
Explanation: Under the Equal Pay Act, employers subject to the minimum wage provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) may not use gender as a basis for paying lower wages to an
employee for equal work "on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and
responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions." Thus, Lily will prevail
in a claim under the Equal Pay Act.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Bloom's: Apply
31
42) Unless a BFOQ, gender may not be the basis for an employment decision. All of the following
are problematic, except:
A) Asking for a job applicant's maiden name in order to perform a background check.
B) Failure to provide proper restroom facilities for women when the job site is under construction.
C) Terminating a female employee for cursing on the job, while male employees are merely
reprimanded for it.
D) Asking a job applicant if they have used other names in the past in order to perform a proper
background check.
Answer: D
Explanation: Title VII and state fair-employment-practice laws regarding gender cover the full
scope of the employment relationship. Unless it is a BFOQ, gender may not be the basis of any
decision related to employment. This includes the following, taken from actual situations: 1)
Asking questions on an application that are only asked of one gender. For example, for
background-check purposes asking the applicant's maiden name, rather than simply asking all
applicants if there is another name they may have used. 2) Not taking into consideration legitimate
differences between genders that can mean that treating them exactly the same may produce an
undue hardship for the other, such as refusal to provide proper restroom facilities for all employees
on construction sites. 3) Terminating the employment of an employee of one gender for reasons
that would not serve as the basis for termination for an employee of the other gender. For example,
terminating a female employee for cursing or fighting on the job, when males engaged in similar
activity are retained.
in the workplace.
Bloom's: Understand
32
43) Jonah and Sally, recent graduates, are hired as computer analysts for ComputerWorld Inc. In a
conversation over lunch, Sally discovers that Jonah's salary is 15 percent higher than hers.
Assuming that she is being paid less because she is a female, Sally contacts the human resources
department, demanding that her salary be increased by 15 percent. After a few days, however, she
is informed that Jonah violated company policy by discussing his salary, and his salary would be
reduced by 15 percent to maintain equality. In this scenario:
A) Sally does not have a discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act because the company
remedied the wage discrepancy by lowering Jonah's salary.
B) Jonah has a discrimination claim because the employer violated the Equal Pay Act by reducing
Jonah's salary to match Sally's salary.
C) Sally has a claim under the Equal Pay Act only if she can show that she incurs more monthly
expenses than Jonah.
D) Sally does not have a claim for discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because
ComputerWorld is a private employer.
Answer: B
Explanation: To comply with the Equal Pay Act, an employer may not reduce the wage rate of
the higher-paid employees. In this case, ComputerWorld violated the Equal Pay Act by reducing
Jonah's salary to match Sally's salary.
Bloom's: Understand
33
44) All of the following are examples of gender stereotyping except:
A) men are always the family breadwinners
B) men who display emotion are weak or effeminate
C) a female manager has some direct reports that are male.
D) a woman away from her desk must be in the bathroom; a man away from his desk must be
attending to business matters
Answer: C
Explanation: Much discrimination on the basis of gender is in some way based on gender
stereotypes. That is, workplace decisions are based on ideas of how a particular gender should act
or dress, or what roles they should perform or jobs they should hold. An employer may terminate a
female employee who is too "abrasive," or not hire a female for a job as a welder because it is
"men's work." Stereotypes generally have little or nothing to do with an individual employee's
qualifications or ability to perform. Workplace decisions based on stereotypes are prohibited by
Title VII. Gender stereotyping began as stereotyping about females, but over the years the more
recent cases also used the Price Waterhouse case to prohibit gender stereotyping of males,
particularly as it relates to effeminacy. This, in turn, eventually resulted in the EEOC interpreting
Title VII's gender provision as also prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in
2012, and sexual orientation in 2015.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
in the workplace.
Bloom's: Remember
34
45) All of the following are true of fetal protection policies, except:
A) are policies adopted by an employer that limit or prohibit employees from performing certain
jobs or working in certain areas of the workplace because of the potential harm presented to
pregnant employees, their fetuses, or the reproductive system or capacity of employees
B) should consider whether adverse effects extend to men, and if they do, should provide
protections for the men too
C) should never be applied to men in the workplace
D) it can be problematic when they take away job discrimination protection from a female
employee rather than letting her make her own decisions
Answer: C
capacity of employees.
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Bloom's: Remember
46) Describe "gender-plus" discrimination, and the issues that arise as a result of it. Give at least
two examples.
Answer: There are some situations in which the employer may permit the hiring of women but
not if there are other factors present—for example, no hiring of women who are pregnant, are
married, are over a certain age, have children under a certain age, or are unmarried with children.
This is "gender-plus" discrimination. Of course, the problem is that such policies are not neutral at
all because males are not subject to the same limitations.
Bloom's: Remember
35
47) Liam works as a sales clerk at Big Time TV and Stereo, an entertainment and appliance
retailer. Big Time has a grooming policy that requires employees to be generally neat in
appearance and specifically prohibits male employees from wearing long hair. Liam, an aspiring
actor, has been growing his hair out for a role. Though he makes a point to pull his hair back neatly
in a ponytail, he has been issued a warning about violating the store's grooming policy and faces
termination if he fails to comply. Liam claims that the policy constitutes gender discrimination
because there is no such limitation on female employees. Does Liam have a valid claim for gender
discrimination against Big Time?
Answer: No, Liam does not have a valid claim for gender discrimination against Big Time.
Courts recognize that employers need to be able to control the appearance of employees in the
workplace and allow a good deal of flexibility in this area. In Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment
Corporation, male employees sued for gender discrimination based on not being allowed to wear
long hair since there was no such limitation on female employees. In rejecting their claim, the
court said that "distinctions in employment practices between men and women on the basis of
something other than immutable or protected characteristics do not inhibit employment
opportunity in violation of Title VII. Congress sought only to give all persons equal access to the
job market, not to limit an employer's right to exercise his informed judgment as to how best to run
his shop." Title VII does not prohibit an employer from using gender as a basis for reasonable
grooming codes.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Bloom's: Apply
36
48) The Pair o' Dice Casino refuses to hire female bouncers on the grounds that they are not strong
and intimidating enough to effectively perform the job. During a trial for gender discrimination
brought by a group of women who were denied jobs as bouncers at the casino, the general manager
defended the policy and offered as the only evidence of the policy's soundness that "it is quite
evident that the physical capability of women is less than that of men." What kind of defense is the
general manager asserting, and will it be successful?
Answer: The manager is asserting the bona fide occupational qualification defense as he is
claiming that physical strength is necessary to effectively perform the job. He will probably be
unsuccessful, however, even if he is correct about the difference in strength between men and
women, unless he can demonstrate, through the introduction of credible, objective evidence, that
strength is necessary to effectively perform the job and that all women lack that kind of strength.
His casual observation that strength is necessary to effectively perform the job and that women
generally do not meet that requirement will be insufficient. In addition, it is likely that there will be
some women who will be stronger than many men and who would meet a valid strength
requirement.
(Some students may write about women who are skilled in martial arts or women who are able to
work effectively as bouncers by using verbal skills so that problems or confrontations are resolved
without the use of physical violence.)
While BFOQs are permitted as a lawful means of discriminating based on gender, they are very
narrowly construed. The employer is under a heavy duty to show that the gender requirement is
reasonably necessary for the employer's particular business.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Topic: Gender as a BFOQ
Bloom's: Apply
37
49) What is gender stereotyping, and how does it result in gender discrimination?
Answer: Much discrimination on the basis of gender is in some way based on gender stereotypes.
That is, workplace decisions are based on ideas of how a particular gender should act or dress, or
what roles they should perform or jobs they should hold. An employer may terminate a female
employee who is too "abrasive," or not hire a female for a job as a welder because it is "men's
work." Stereotypes generally have little or nothing to do with an individual employee's
qualifications or ability to perform. Workplace decisions based on stereotypes are prohibited by
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Stereotyping frequently leads to actions that form the basis of unnecessary liability for the
employer. It is senseless for employers to allow managers and supervisors who hold such views to
cause liability that costs the entire company unnecessary loss of revenue. Gender stereotyping
began as stereotyping about females, but recent cases also have used the Price Waterhouse case to
prohibit gender stereotyping of males, particularly as it relates to effeminacy.
Bloom's: Understand
38
50) Victoria has been employed by TEDCO Inc. for five years. During that time, she has been an
exemplary employee, frequently being named employee of the quarter. TEDCO has 150
employees, 47 of them female, yet none of its female employees has young children. However,
several of its male employees have young children. When Victoria informs Brian, her manager,
that she is pregnant, he starts treating her differently even though her work has not been affected by
her pregnancy. Brian does not like having pregnant employees on his team and therefore fires
Victoria in her sixth month of pregnancy. Victoria finds out later that Brian also fired another
employee when she told him she was pregnant. Does Victoria have a valid claim for pregnancy
discrimination against TEDCO? Also, is the company's attitude toward women with young
children lawful?
Answer: Victoria can file a claim for discrimination on the basis of pregnancy under the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA makes it unlawful for an employer to use
pregnancy as the basis for treating an employee differently than any other employee with a
short-term disability if that employee can perform the job. It appears that Brian fired Victoria
because she was pregnant.
Additionally, it appears that management at TEDCO engages in gender-plus discrimination in that

the company does not hire women with young children but does hire men with young children.
There are some situations in which the employer may permit the hiring of women but not if there
are other factors present—for example, no hiring of women who are pregnant, are married, are
over a certain age, have children under a certain age, or are unmarried with children. This is
"gender-plus" discrimination. Of course, the problem is that such policies are not neutral at all
because males are not subject to the same limitations.
Difficulty: 3 Hard
Topic: Gender as a BFOQ; "Gender-Plus" Discrimination
result in employer liability.; 08-05 Define fetal protection policies, gender-plus discrimination,
Bloom's: Apply
39
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The sitting of the Convention brought out Apr. 28.
a great amount of volunteer zeal, in behalf
of the Revolution, amongst those extreme Presbyterians of the west
who had been the greatest sufferers under the old government. They
thought it but right—while the Highlanders were rising for James in
the north—that they should take up arms for William in the south.
The movement centered at the village of Douglas in Lanarkshire,
where the representative of the great House of that name was now
devoted to the Protestant interest. On the day noted, a vast crowd of
people assembled on a holm or meadow near the village, where a
number of their favourite preachers addressed them in succession
with suitable exhortations, and for the purpose of clearing away
certain scruples which were felt regarding the lawfulness of their
appearing otherwise than under an avowed prosecution of the great
objects of the Solemn League and Covenant.
After some difficulties on these and similar points, a regiment was
actually constituted on the 14th of May, and nowhere out of Scotland
perhaps could a corps have been formed under such unique
regulations. They declared that they appeared for the preservation of
the Protestant religion, and for ‘the work of reformation in Scotland,
in opposition to popery, prelacy, and arbitrary power.’ They
stipulated that their officers should exclusively be men such as ‘in
conscience’ they could submit to. A minister was appointed for the
regiment, and an elder nominated for each 1689.
company, so that the whole should be under
precisely the same religious and moral discipline as a parish,
according to the standards of the church. A close and constant
correspondence with the ‘United Societies’—the Carbonari of the
late evil times—was settled upon. A Bible was a part of the furniture
of every private’s knapsack—a regulation then quite singular. Great
care was taken in the selection of officers, the young Earl of Angus,
son of the Marquis of Douglas, being appointed colonel; while the
second command was given to William Cleland, a man of poetical
genius and ardent soldierly character, who had appeared for God’s
cause at Bothwell-brig. It is impossible to read the accounts that are
given of this Cameronian Regiment, as it was called, without
sympathising with the earnestness of purpose, the conscientious
scrupulosity, and the heroic feelings of self-devotion, under which it
was established, and seeing in these demonstrations something of
what is highest and best in the Scottish character.
It is not therefore surprising to learn that in August, when posted
at Dunkeld, it made a most gallant and successful resistance to three
or four times the number of Highlanders, then fresh from their
victory at Killiecrankie; though, on this occasion, it lost its heroic
lieutenant-colonel. Afterwards being called to serve abroad, it
distinguished itself on many occasions; but, unluckily, the pope
being concerned in the league for which King William had taken up
arms, the United Societies from that time withdrew their
countenance from the regiment. The Cameronians became the 26th
Foot in the British army, and, long after they had ceased to be
recruited among the zealous in Scotland, and ceased to exemplify
Presbyterian in addition to military discipline, they continued to be
singular in the matter of the Bible in the knapsack.[8]
There had been for some time in Scotland June 7.

a considerable number of French
Protestants, for whom the charity of the nation had been called forth.
To these was now added a multitude of poor Irish of the same faith,
refugees from the cruel wars going on in their own country, and
many of whom were women, children, and infirm persons. Slender
as the resources of Scotland usually were, and sore pressed upon at
present by the exactions necessary for supporting the new
government, a collection was going on in behalf of the refugee Irish.
It was now, however, represented, that 1689.
many in the western counties were in such
want, that they could not wait till the collection was finished; and so
the Lords of the Privy Council ordered that the sums gathered in
those counties be immediately distributed in fair proportions
between the French and Irish, and enjoining the distributors ‘to take
special care that such of those poor Protestants as stays in the remote
places of those taxable bounds and districts be duly and timeously
supplied.’ Seventy pounds in all was distributed.
Five days before this, we hear of John Adamson confined in
Burntisland tolbooth as a papist, and humanely liberated, that he
might be enabled to depart from the kingdom.[9]
This morning, being Sunday, the royal June 23.
orders for the appointment of fifteen new
men to be Lords of Session reached Edinburgh, all of them being, of
course, persons notedly well affected to the new order of things.
Considering the veneration professed for the day by zealous
Presbyterians in Scotland, and how high stood the character of the
Earl of Crawford for a religious life, one is rather surprised to find
one of the new judges (Crossrig) bluntly telling that that earl ‘sent for
me in the morning, and intimated to me that I was named for one of
them.’ He adds a curious fact. ‘It seems the business had got wind,
and was talked some days before, for Mr James Nasmyth, advocate,
who was then concerned for the Faculty’s Library, spoke to me to pay
the five hundred merks I had given bond for when I entered
advocate; which I paid. It may be he thought it would not be so
decent to crave me after I was preferred to the bench.’[10]
It is incidental to liberating and reforming parties that they seldom

escape having somewhat to falsify their own professions. The
Declaration of the Estates containing the celebrated Claim of Right
(April 1689) asserted that ‘the imprisoning of persons, without
expressing the reasons thereof, and delaying to put them to trial, is
contrary to law.’ It also pronounced as equally illegal ‘the using of
torture without evidence in ordinary crimes.’ Very good as a party
condemnation of the late government, or as a declaration of general
principles; but, for a time, nothing more.
One of the first acts of the new government was for the ‘securing of
suspect persons.’ It could not but be vexing to the men who had
delivered their country ‘from thraldom and 1689.
poperie, and the pernicious inconveniences
of ane absolute power,’ when they found themselves—doubtless
under a full sense of the necessity of the case—probably as much so
as their predecessors had ever felt—ordering something like half the
nobility and gentry of the country, and many people of inferior rank,
into ward, there to lie without trial—and in at least one notorious
case, had to resort to torture to extort confession; thus imitating
those very proceedings of the late government which they themselves
had condemned.
All through the summer of 1689, the register of the Privy Council is
crammed with petitions from the imprisoned, calling for some
degree of relief from the miseries they were subjected to in the
Edinburgh Tolbooth, Stirling Castle, Blackness Castle, and other
places of confinement, to which they had been consigned, generally
without intimation of a cause. The numbers in the Edinburgh
Tolbooth were particularly great, insomuch that one who
remembers, as the author does, its narrow gloomy interior, gets the
idea of their being packed in it much like the inmates of an emigrant
ship.
Men of the highest rank were consigned to this frightful place. We
find the Earl of Balcarres petitioning (May 30) for release from it on
the plea that his health was suffering, ‘being always, when at liberty,
accustomed to exercise [his lordship was a great walker];’ and,
moreover, he had given security ‘not to escape or do anything in
prejudice of the government.’ The Council ordained that he should
be ‘brought from the Tolbooth to his own lodging in James
Hamilton’s house over forgainst the Cross of Edinburgh,’ he giving
his parole of honour ‘not to go out of his lodgings, nor keep
correspondence with any persons in prejudice or disturbance of the
present government.’ With the like humanity, Lord Lovat was
allowed to live with his relative the Marquis of Athole in
Holyroodhouse, but under surveillance of a sentinel.
Sir Robert Grierson of Lagg—who, having been an active servant of
the late government in some of its worst work, is the subject of high
popular disrepute as a persecutor—was seized in his own house by
Lord Kenmure, and taken to the jail of Kirkcudbright—thence
afterwards to the Edinburgh Tolbooth. He seems to have been
liberated about the end of August, on giving security for peaceable
behaviour.
The most marked and hated instrument of King James was
certainly the Chancellor Earl of Perth. He 1689.
had taken an early opportunity of trying to
escape from the country, so soon as he learned that the king himself
had fled. It would have been better for all parties if his lordship had
succeeded in getting away; but some officious Kirkcaldy boatmen
had pursued his vessel, and brought him back; and after he had
undergone many contumelies, the government consigned him to
close imprisonment in Stirling Castle, ‘without the use of pen, ink, or
paper,’ and with only one servant, who was to remain close prisoner
with him. Another high officer of the late government, John
Paterson, Archbishop of Glasgow, was placed in close prison in
Edinburgh Castle, and not till after many months, allowed even to
converse with his friends: nor does he appear to have been released
till January 1693.
Among the multitude of the incarcerated was an ingenious
foreigner, who for some years had been endeavouring to carve a
subsistence out of Scotland, with more or less success. We have
heard of Peter Bruce before[11] as constructing a harbour, as patentee
for a home-manufacture of playing-cards, and as the conductor of
the king’s Catholic printing-house at Holyrood. It ought likewise to
have been noted as a favourable fact in his history, that the first
system of water-supply for Edinburgh—by a three-inch pipe from the
lands of Comiston—was effected by this clever Flandrian. At the
upbreak of the old government in December, Bruce’s printing-office
was destroyed by the mob, and his person laid hold of. We now (June
1689) learn, by a petition from him to the Privy Council, that he had
been enduring ‘with great patience and silence seven months’
imprisonment, for no other cause or crime but the coming of one
Nicolas Droomer, skipper at Newport, to the petitioner’s house,
which Droomer was likewise on misinformation imprisoned in this
place, but is released therefra four weeks ago,’ He adds that he looks
on his imprisonment to be ‘but ane evil recompense for all the good
offices of his art, has been performed by him not only within the
town of Edinburgh, but in several places of the kingdom, to which he
was invited from Flanders. He, being a stranger, yet can make it
appear [he] has lost by the rabble upwards of twenty thousand merks
of writs and papers, besides the destruction done to his house and
family, all being robbed, pillaged, and plundered from him, and not
so much as a shirt left him or his wife.’ He 1689.
thinks ‘such barbarous usage has scarce
been heard [of]; whereby, and through his imprisonment, he is so
out of credit, that himself was like to starve in prison, [and] his
family at home in the same condition.’ Peter’s petition for his
freedom was acceded to, on his granting security to the extent of fifty
pounds for peaceable behaviour under the present government.
Another sufferer was a man of the like desert—namely, John
Slezer, the military engineer, to whom we owe that curious work the
Theatrum Scotiæ. The Convention was at first disposed to put him
into his former employment as a commander of the artillery; but he
hesitated about taking the proper oath, and in March a warrant was
issued for securing him ‘untill he find caution not to return to the
Castle [then held out for King James].’[12] He informed the Council
(June 3) that for some weeks he had been a close prisoner in the
Canongate Tolbooth by their order, till now, his private affairs
urgently requiring his presence in England, he was obliged to crave
his liberation, which, ‘conceiving that he knew himself to be of a
disposition peaceable and regular,’ he thought they well might grant.
They did liberate him, and at the same time furnished him with a
pass to go southward.
One of the petitioning prisoners, Captain Henry Bruce, states that
he had been in durance for nine months, merely because, when the
rabble attacked Holyroodhouse, he obeyed the orders of his superior
officer for defending it. That superior officer himself, Captain John
Wallace, was in prison on the same account. He presented a petition
to the Council—February 5, 1691—setting forth how he had been a
captive for upwards of a year, though, in defending Holyrood from
the rabble, he had acted in obedience to express orders from the
Privy Council of the day, and might have been tried by court-martial
and shot if he had not done as he did. He craved liberation on
condition of self-banishment. The Council ordered their solicitor to
prosecute him; and on a reclamation from him, this order was
repeated. In the ensuing November, however, we find Wallace still
languishing in prison, and his health decaying—although, as he sets
forth in a petition, ‘by the 13th act of the Estates of this kingdom, the
imprisoning persons without expressing the reasons, and delaying to
put them to a trial, is utterly and directly contrary to the known
statutes, laws, and freedoms of this kingdom.’ He was not subjected
to trial till August 6, 1692, when he had 1689.
been nearly four years a prisoner. The
laborious proceedings, extending over several days, and occupying
many wearisome pages of the Justiciary Record, shew the anxiety of
the Revolution government to be revenged on this gallant adversary;
but the trial ended in a triumphant acquittal.
Several men and women were imprisoned in the Tolbooth for
giving signals to the garrison holding out the Castle. One Alexander
Ormiston petitioned for his liberation as innocent of the charge. He
had merely wiped his eyes, which were sore from infancy, with his
napkin, as he passed along the Grassmarket; and this had been
interpreted into his giving a signal. After a confinement of twelve
days, Alexander obtained his liberation, ‘free of house-dues.’
John Lothian petitioned, August 19, for liberation, having been
incarcerated on the 8th of July. He declared himself unconscious of
anything that ‘could have deserved his being denied the common
liberty of a subject,’ A most malignant fever had now broken out in
the Tolbooth, whereof one prisoner died last night, and on all hands
there were others infected beyond hope of recovery. He, being
reduced to great weakness by his long confinement, was
apprehensive of falling a victim. John Rattray, on the ensuing day,
sent a like petition, stating that he had lain six weeks ‘in close prison,
in a most horrible and starving condition, for want of meat, drink,
air, and bedding,’ A wife and large family of small children were
equally destitute at home, and likely to starve, ‘he not having ane
groat to maintain either himself or them.’ Lothian was liberated, but
the wretched Rattray was only transferred to ‘open prison’—that is, a
part of the jail where he was accessible to his family and to visitors.
Amongst the multitude of political prisoners was one James
Johnstone, who had been put there two years before, without
anything being laid to his charge. The new government had ordered
his liberation in June, but without paying up the aliment due to him;
consequently, he could not discharge his prison-dues; and for this
the Goodman—so the head-officer of the jail was styled—had
detained him. He was reduced to the most miserable condition, often
did not break bread for four or five days, and really had no
dependence but on the charity of the other scarcely less miserable
people around him. The Council seem to have felt ashamed that a
friend of their own should have been allowed to lie nine months in
jail after the Revolution; so they ordered his 1689.
immediate dismissal, with payment of
aliment for four hundred and two days in arrear.[13]
Christopher Cornwell, servitor to Thomas Dunbar, stated to the
Privy Council, March 19, 1690, that he had been in the Edinburgh
Tolbooth since June last with his master, ‘where he has lived upon
credit given him by the maid who had the charge of the provisions
within the prison, and she being unable as well as unwilling to
furnish him any more that entertainment, mean as it was, his
condition hardly can be expressed, nor could he avoid starving.’ He
was liberated upon his parole.
David Buchanan, who had been clerk to Lord Dundee’s regiment,
was seized in coming northward, with some meal believed to be the
property of his master, and he was thrown in among the crowd of the
Tolbooth. For weeks he petitioned in vain for release.
The Privy Council, on the 13th May 1690, expressed anxiety about
the prisoners; but it was not regarding their health or comfort. They
sent a committee to consider how best the Tolbooth might be made
secure—for there had been an escape from the Canongate jail—and
for this purpose it was decreed that close prisoners should be
confined within the inner rooms; that the shutters towards the north
should be nightly locked, to prevent communications with the houses
in that direction; and that ‘there should be a centinel all the daytime
at the head of the iron ravell stair at the Chancellary Chamber, lest
letters and other things may be tolled up.’[14]
The chief of the clan Mackintosh, usually June.

called the Laird of Mackintosh, claimed
rights of property over the lands of Keppoch, Glenroy, and
Glenspean, in Inverness-shire, ‘worth five thousand merks of yearly
rent’—a district interesting to modern men of science, on account of
the singular impress left upon it by the hand of nature in the form of
water-laid terraces, commonly called the Parallel Roads of Glenroy,
but then known only as the haunt of a wild race of Macdonalds,
against whom common processes of law were of no avail. Mackintosh
—whose descendant is now the peaceable landlord of a peaceable
tenantry in this country—had in 1681 1689.
obtained letters of fire and sword as a last
desperate remedy against Macdonald of Keppoch and others; but no
good had come of it.
In the year of the Revolution, these letters had been renewed, and
about the time when Seymour and Russell were inviting over the
Prince of Orange for the rescue of Protestantism and liberty,
Mackintosh was leading a thousand of his people from Badenoch
into Glenspean, in order to wreak the vengeance of the law upon his
refractory tenants. He was joined by a detachment of government
troops under Captain Mackenzie of Suddy; but Keppoch, who is
described by a contemporary as ‘a gentleman of good understanding,
and of great cunning,’ was not dismayed. With five hundred men, he
attacked the Mackintosh on the brae above Inverroy, less than half a
mile from his own house, and gained a sanguinary victory. The
captain of the regular troops and some other persons were killed; the
Laird of Mackintosh was taken prisoner, and not liberated till he had
made a formal renunciation of his claims; two hundred horses and a
great quantity of other spoil fell into the hands of the victors.[15] The
Revolution, happening soon after, caused little notice to be taken of
this affair, which is spoken of as the last clan-battle in the Highlands.
Now that Whiggery was triumphing in Edinburgh, it pleased
Keppoch to rank himself among those chiefs of clans who were
resolved to stand out for King James. Dundee reckoned upon his
assistance; but when he went north in spring, he found this
‘gentleman of good understanding’ laying siege to Inverness with
nine hundred men, in order to extort from its burghers at the point
of the sword some moneys he thought they owed him. The northern
capital—a little oasis of civilisation and hearty Protestantism in the
midst of, or at least close juxtaposition to, the Highlands—was in the
greatest excitement and terror lest Keppoch should rush in and
plunder it. There were preachings at the cross to animate the
inhabitants in their resolutions of defence; and a collision seemed
imminent. At length the chieftain consented, for two thousand
dollars, to retire. It is alleged that Dundee was shocked and angry at
the proceedings of this important partisan, but unable or unwilling
to do more than expostulate with him. Keppoch by and by joined him
in earnest with his following, while Mackintosh held off in a state of
indecision.
This gave occasion for a transaction of 1689.
private war, forming really a notable part of
the Scottish insurrection for King James, though it has been scarcely
noticed in history. It was when Dundee, in the course of his marching
and countermarching that summer, chanced to come within a few
miles of Mackintosh’s house of Dunachtan, on Speyside, that
Keppoch bethought him of the opportunity it afforded for the
gratification of his vengeful feelings. He communicated not with his
commander. He took no counsel of any one; he slipped away with his
followers unobserved, and, stooping like an eagle on the unfortunate
Mackintosh, burned his mansion, and ravaged his lands, destroying
and carrying away property afterwards set forth as of the value of two
thousand four hundred and sixty-six pounds sterling.
This independent way of acting was highly characteristic of
Dundee’s followers; but he found it exceedingly inconvenient. Being
informed of the facts, he told Keppoch, in presence of his other
officers, that ‘he would much rather choose to serve as a common
soldier among disciplined troops, than command such men as he;
that though he had committed these outrages in revenge of his own
private quarrel, it would be generally believed he had acted by
authority; that since he was resolved to do what he pleased, without
any regard to command and the public good, he begged that he
would immediately be gone with his men, that he might not hereafter
have an opportunity of affronting the general at his pleasure, or of
making him and the better-disposed troops a cover to his robberies.
Keppoch, who did not expect so severe a rebuke, humbly begged his
lordship’s pardon, and told him that he would not have abused
Mackintosh so, if he had not thought him an enemy to the king as
well as to himself; that he was heartily sorry for what was past; but
since that could not be amended, he solemnly promised a submissive
obedience for the future.’[16]
The preceding was not a solitary instance of private clan-warfare,
carried on under cover of Dundee’s insurrection. Amongst his
notable followers were the Camerons, headed by their sagacious
chief, Sir Ewen of Locheil, who was now well advanced in years,
though he lived for thirty more. A few of this clan having been
hanged by the followers of the Laird of Grant—a chief strong in the
Whig cause—it was deemed right that a 1689.
revenge should be taken in Glen Urquhart.
‘They presumed that their general would not be displeased, in the
circumstances he was then in, if they could supply him with a drove
of cattle from the enemy’s country.’ Marching off without leave, they
found the Grants in Glen Urquhart prepared to receive them; but
before the attack, a Macdonald came forward, telling that he was
settled amongst the Grants, and claiming, on that account, that none
of the people should be injured. They told him that, if he was a true
Macdonald, he ought to be with his chief, serving his king and
country in Dundee’s army; they could not, on his account, consent to
allow the death of their clansmen to remain unavenged. The man
returned dejected to his friends, the Grants, and the Camerons made
the attack, gaining an easy victory, and bearing off a large spoil to the
army in Lochaber.
Dundee consented to overlook this wild episode, on account of the
supplies it brought him; but there was another person grievously
offended. The Macdonald who lived among the Grants was one of
those who fell in the late skirmish. By all the customs of Highland
feeling, this was an event for the notice of his chief Glengarry, who
was one of the magnates in Dundee’s army. Glengarry appeared to
resent the man’s death highly, and soon presented himself before the
general, with a demand for satisfaction on Locheil and the
Camerons. ‘Surprised at the oddness of the thing, his lordship asked
what manner of satisfaction he wanted; “for,” said he, “I believe it
would puzzle the ablest judges to fix upon it, even upon the
supposition that they were in the wrong;” and added, that “if there
was any injury done, it was to him, as general of the king’s troops, in
so far as they had acted without commission.” Glengarry answered
that they had equally injured and affronted both, and that therefore
they ought to be punished, in order to deter others from following
their example.’ To this Dundee replied with further excuses, still
expressing his inability to see what offence had been done to
Glengarry, and remarking, that ‘if such an accident is a just ground
for raising a disturbance in our small army, we shall not dare to
engage the king’s enemies, lest there may chance to be some of your
name and following among them who may happen to be killed.’
Glengarry continued to bluster, threatening to take vengeance with
his own hand; but in reality he was too much a man of the general
world to be himself under the influence of these Highland feelings—
he only wished to appear before his people as eager to avenge what
they felt to be a just offence. The affair, 1689.
[17]
therefore, fell asleep.
The Earl of Balcarres, having failed to July 4.
satisfy the government about his peaceable
intentions, was put under restraint in Edinburgh Castle, which was
now in the hands of the government. There, he must have waited
with great anxiety for news of his friend Lord Dundee.
‘After the battle of Killiecrankie, where fell the last hope of James
in the Viscount of Dundee, the ghost of that hero is said to have
appeared about daybreak to his confidential friend, Lord Balcarres,
then confined to Edinburgh Castle. The spectre, drawing aside the
curtain of the bed, looked very steadfastly upon the earl, after which
it moved towards the mantel-piece, remained there for some time in
a leaning posture, and then walked out of the chamber without
uttering one word. Lord Balcarres, in great surprise, though not
suspecting that which he saw to be an apparition, called out
repeatedly to his friend to stop, but received no answer, and
subsequently learned that at the very moment this shadow stood
before him, Dundee had breathed his last near the field of
Killiecrankie.’[18]
On the news of the defeat of the government troops, his lordship
had some visits from beings more substantial, but perhaps equally
pale of countenance. In his Memoirs, he tells us of the consternation
of the new councillors. ‘Some were for retiring to England, others to
the western shires of Scotland ... they considered whether to set at
liberty all the prisoners, or make them more close; the last was
resolved, and we were all locked up and debarred from seeing our
friends, but never had so many visits from our enemies, all making
apologies for what was past, protesting they always wished us well, as
we should see whenever they had an opportunity.’
Lord Balcarres was liberated on the 4th of March 1690, on giving
caution for peaceable behaviour, the danger of Jacobite reaction
being by that time abated.
A poor young woman belonging to a July 10.

northern county, wandering southwards in
search of a truant lover, like a heroine of one of the old ballads, found
herself reduced to the last extremity of distress when a few miles
south of Peebles. Bewildered and desperate, 1689.
she threw her babe into the Haystown Burn, and began to wander
back towards her own country. A couple of the inhabitants of
Peebles, fishing in the burn, soon found the body of the infant, and, a
search being made, the wretched mother was discovered at a place
called Jedderfield, brought into town, and put in confinement, as a
suspected murderess. The magistrates of the burgh applied to the
sheriff, John Balfour of Kailzie, to have the supposed culprit taken
off their hands, and tried; but he refused to interfere, owing to ‘the
present surcease of justice’ in the country. Consequently, the
magistrates were ‘necessitate to cause persons constantly guard the
murderer, the prison not being strong enough to secure her.’ On
their petition, the Privy Council allowed the Peebles authorities to
send Margaret Craig, with a guard, to Edinburgh, and ordained her
to be received into the Tolbooth of Leith, till she be processed for the
murder.[19]
This miserable young woman must have lain in prison three years,
for she was tried by the Court of Justiciary in June 1692, and
condemned to be hanged.[20]
There is something interesting in the July 26.

early difficulties of so valuable an
institution as the Post-office. John Graham had been appointed
postmaster-general for Scotland in 1674, with a salary of a thousand
pounds Scots (£83, 6s. 8d. sterling), and had set about his duty with
great spirit. He had travelled to many towns for the purpose of
establishing local offices, thus incurring expenses far beyond what
his salary could repay. He had been obliged on this account to
encroach on money belonging to his wife; also to incur some
considerable debts; nor had he ever been able to obtain any relief, or
even the full payment of his salary from the late state-officers. He
was now dead, and his widow came before the Privy Council with a
petition setting forth how she had been left penniless by her husband
through his liberality towards a public object. It was ordained that
Mrs Graham should get payment of all debts due by provincial offices
to her husband, and have the income of the general office till
Martinmas next.
It is to be feared that Mrs Graham did not profit much by this
order, as on the subsequent 19th of October we find her complaining
that William Mean of the Edinburgh letter-office, and others, had
refused to pay her the arrears declared to be 1689.
due to her; wherefore the order was
renewed.
The general post-mastership was at this time put upon a different
footing, being sold by roup, July 24, 1689, to John Blair, apothecary
in Edinburgh, he undertaking to carry on the entire business on
various rates of charge for letters, and to pay the government five
thousand one hundred merks (about £255 sterling) yearly, for seven
years. The rates were, for single letters to Dumfries, Glasgow, and
Ayr, Dundee, Perth, Kelso, and Jedburgh, two shillings; to Carlisle,
Portpatrick, Aberdeen, and Dunkeld, three shillings; to
Kirkcudbright and Inverness, four shillings, all Scots money.
In October of this year, the above- Oct. 8.
mentioned William Mean was sent with a
macer to the Tolbooth for keeping up letters sent from Ireland ‘untill
payment of the letters were paid to him, albeit the postage were
satisfied in England, and that he had sent back packets to London
which were directed for Ireland.’ Also, ‘notwithstanding the former
order of Council appointing him to deliver in to them any letters
directed for James Graham, vintner, he had kept up the same these
eight or ten days, and had never acquainted any member of Council
therewith.’ He was liberated two days after, on caution for
reappearance under 500 merks. It may be surmised that William
Mean was disposed to take advantage of some regulations of his
office in order to give trouble to the existing government.
In the course of 1690, besides a deliberate robbery of the post-boy
on the road between Cockburnspath and Haddington (see under
August 16th of that year), the fact of the bag frequently coming with
the seals broken, is adverted to in angry terms by the Privy Council.
An edict for the use of official seals and the careful preservation of
these was passed; nevertheless, we soon after hear of the bag or box
coming once more into Edinburgh with the seals broken, Mrs Gibb,
the post-mistress at the Canongate post,[21] sent for, Mrs Mean of the
letter-office also called up, and much turmoil and fume for a while,
but no sort of decisive step taken in consequence. It is to be observed
that the post from the English to the Scottish capital was at this time
carried on horseback with a fair degree of speed. English
parliamentary proceedings of Saturday are noted to be in the hands
of the Edinburgh public on the ensuing Thursday.[22]
Alexander Irvine of Drum, the 1689. Sep.
representative of a distinguished historical
family in Aberdeenshire, was unfortunately weak both in mind and
body, although it is related that he could play well on the viol, and
had picked up the then popular political tune of Lullibullero in the
course of a few days. Under sanction of the Privy Council, Dr David
Mitchell of Edinburgh undertook to keep him in his house in a style
befitting his quality, and with the care required by his weakly
condition, and for this purpose hired some additional rooms, and
made other necessary furnishings and preparations. The laird came
to him at the close of July, but before the end of August, Marjory
Forbes had induced the laird to own her as his wife, and it became
necessary that Drum should leave his medical protector. A petition
being presented by Dr Mitchell for payment of board and
recompense for charges thus needlessly incurred, he was allowed by
the Lords £500 Scots, or £41, 13s. 4d. sterling, over and above
twenty pieces he had received for a professional visit paid to the
laird’s Aberdeenshire castle, to arrange for his migration to
Edinburgh.[23]
James Broich, skipper of Dundee, was proceeding in his scout to

Norway with a small parcel of goods, and a thousand pounds Scots
wherewith to buy a larger vessel. In mid-sea he fell in with a French
privateer, who, after seizing cargo and money, having no spare hands
to leave on board, proceeded to cut holes in the vessel, in order to
sink her, proposing to put the unfortunate crew to their boat, in
which case they must have perished, ‘there being then a great stress.’
By the prayers and tears of the skipper and his people, the privateer
was at length induced to let them go in their vessel, but not without
first obtaining a bond from Broich, undertaking to remit six hundred
guelders to Dunkirk by a particular day. As a guarantee for this
payment, the rover detained and carried off the skipper’s son, telling
him he would hear no good of him if the money should fail to be
forthcoming.
Poor Broich got safe home, where his case excited much
commiseration, more particularly as he had suffered from shipwreck
and capture four times before in the course of his professional life.
He was penniless, and unable to support his family; his son, also
—‘the stay and staff of his old age’—had a wife and small children of
his own left desolate. Here was a little 1689.
domestic tragedy very naturally arising out
of the wars of the Grand Monarque! Beginning in the council-room
of Versailles, such was the way they told upon humble industrial life
in the port of Dundee in Scotland. It was considered, too, that the
son was in ‘as bad circumstances, in being a prisoner to the French
king, as if he were a slave to the Turks.’
On the petition of Broich, the Privy Sep. 2.
Council ordained a voluntary contribution
to be made for his relief in Edinburgh, Leith, Borrowstounness, and
Queensferry, and in the counties of Fife and Forfar.
In a contemporary case, that of a crew of Grangepans, carried by a
privateer to Dunkirk, and confined in Rochefort, it is stated that they
were each allowed half a sous per diem for subsistence, and were
daily expecting to be sent to the galleys.[24]
It was now acknowledged of the glass- Oct. 10.

work at Leith, that it was carried on
successfully in making green bottles and ‘chemistry and apothecary
glasses.’ It produced its wares ‘in greater quantity in four months
than was ever vended in the kingdom in a year, and at as low rates as
any corresponding articles from London or Newcastle.’ The Privy
Council therefore gave it the privileges of a manufactory, and forbade
introduction of foreign bottles, only providing that the Leith work
should not charge more than half-a-crown a dozen.
The magistrates of Edinburgh were Dec. 2.

ordered to put William Mitchell upon the
Tron, ‘and cause the hangman nail his lug [ear] thereto,’ on
Wednesday the 4th instant, between eleven and twelve in the
forenoon, with a paper on his breast, bearing ‘that he stands there for
the insolencies committed by him on the Guards, and for words of
reflection uttered by him against the present government.’[25]
A large flock of mere-swine (porpoises?) 1690. Feb. 2.
having entered the Firth of Forth, as often
happens, and a considerable number having come ashore, as seldom
happens, at Cramond, the tenants of Sir John Inglis, proprietor of
the lands there, fell upon them with all possible activity, and slew
twenty-three, constituting a prize of no inconsiderable value. After
fastening the animals with ropes, so as to prevent their being carried
out to sea—for the scene of slaughter was 1690.
half a mile in upon a flat sandy beach—the
captors sold them for their own behoof to Robert Douglas, soapboiler
in Leith, fully concluding that they had a perfect right to do so, seeing
that mere-swine are not royal fish, and neither had they been cast in
dead, in which case, as wrack, I presume, they would have belonged
to the landlord.
The greater part of the spoil had been barrelled and transported to
Leith—part of the price paid, too, to the captors—when John Wilkie,
surveyor there, applied to the Privy Council for a warrant to take the
mere-swine into his possession and dispose of them for the benefit of
such persons as they should be found to belong to. He accordingly
seized upon the barrels, and disposed of several of them at eleven
pounds four shillings per barrel, Douglas protesting loudly against
his procedure. On a petition, representing how the animals had been
killed and secured, Wilkie was ordained to pay over the money to
Douglas, deducting only his reasonable charges.
A few hot-headed Perthshire Jacobites, Feb. 28.

including [George] Graham of Inchbrakie,
David Oliphant of Culteuchar, and George Graham of Pitcairns, with
two others designed as ensigns, met to-day at the village of Dunning,
with some other officers of the government troops, and, getting
drink, began to utter various insolencies. They drank the health of
King James, ‘without calling him the late king,’ and further
proceeded to press the same toast upon the government officers. One
of these, Ludovick Grant, quarter-master of Lord Rollo’s troop, was
prudentially retiring from this dangerous society, when Ensign
Mowat cocked a pistol at him, saying: ‘Do you not see that some of us
are King William’s officers as well as you, and why will ye not drink
the health as well as we?’ Grant having asked him what he meant by
that, Inchbrakie took the pistol, and fired it up the chimney—which
seems to have been the only prudential proceeding of the day. The
party continued drinking and brawling at the place, till James
Hamilton, cornet of Rollo’s troop, came with a party to seize them,
when, drawing their swords, they beat back the king’s officer, and
were not without great difficulty taken into custody. Even now, so far
from being repentant, Inchbrakie ‘called for a dishful of aqua vitæ or
brandy, and drank King James’s health,’ saying ‘they were all knaves
and rascals that would refuse it.’ He said ‘he hoped the guise would
turn,’ when Lord Rollo would not be able to keep Scotland, and he
would get Duncrub [Lord Rollo’s house and 1690.
estate] to himself. His fury against the
soldiers extended so far, that he called for powder and ball to shoot
the sentinels placed over him, and ‘broke Alexander Ross’s face with
ane pint-stoup.’ Even when borne along as prisoners to Perth, and
imprisoned there, these furious gentlemen continued railing at Lord
Rollo and his troop, avowing and justifying all they had done at
Dunning.
The offenders, being brought before the Privy Council, gave in
defences, which their counsel, Sir David Thores, advocated with such
rash insolency that he was sent away to prison. The culprits were
punished by fines and imprisonment. We find them with great
difficulty clearing themselves out of jail six months after.[26]
In religious contentions, there is a cowardice in the strongest

ascendency parties which makes them restlessly cruel towards
insignificant minorities. The Roman Catholics in Scotland had never
since the Reformation been more than a handful of people; but they
had constantly been treated with all the jealous severity due to a
great and threatening sect. Even now, when they were cast lower
than at any former time, through the dismal failure of King James to
raise them, there was no abatement of their troubles.
It was at this time a great inconveniency to any one to be a
Catholic. As a specimen—Alexander Fraser of Kinnaries, on the
outbreak of the Revolution, to obviate any suspicion that might arise
about his affection to the new government, came to Inverness, and
put himself under the view of the garrison there. Fears being
nevertheless entertained regarding him, he was sent to prison.
Liberated by General Mackay upon bail, he remained peaceably in
Inverness till December last, when he was sent to Edinburgh, and
there placed under restraint, not to move above a mile from town. He
now represented the hardship he thus Mar. 2.
suffered, ‘his fortune being very small, and
the most of his living being only by his own labouring and industry.’
‘His staying here,’ he added, ‘any space longer must of necessity tend
to his own and his family’s utter ruin.’ With difficulty, the Lords were
induced to liberate him under caution.
Mr David Fairfoul, a priest confined in prison at Inverness, only
regained his liberty by an extraordinary accident. James Sinclair of
Freswick, a Caithness gentleman, had chanced a twelvemonth before
to be taken prisoner by a French privateer, 1690.
as he was voyaging from his northern home
to Edinburgh. Having made his case known to the Scottish Privy
Council, he was relieved in exchange for Mr Fairfoul (June 5, 1690).
About the end of the year, we find a considerable number of
Catholics under government handling. Steven Maxwell, who had
been one of the two masters in the Catholic college at
Holyroodhouse, lay in durance at Blackness. John Abercrombie, ‘a
trafficker,’ and a number of other priests recently collected out of the
Highlands, were immured in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. Another,
named Mr Robert Davidson, of whom it was admitted that ‘his
opinion and deportment always inclined to sobriety and moderation,
shewing kindness and charity to all in distress, even of different
persuasions, and that he made it no part of his business to meddle in
any affairs, but to live peaceably in his native country for his health’s
sake,’ had been put into Leith jail, with permission to go forth for two
hours a day, under caution to the amount of fifty pounds, lest his
health should suffer.
At this very time, a fast was under order of the General Assembly,
with sanction of the government, with a reference to the
consequences of the late oppressive government, citing, among other
things, ‘the sad persecutions of many for their conscience towards
God.’[27]
Apr. 25.
It was declared in the legislature that there were ‘frequent murders
of innocent infants, whose mothers do conceal their pregnancy, and
do not call for necessary assistance in the birth.’ It was therefore
statute, that women acting in this secretive manner, and whose
babes were dead or missing, should be held as guilty of murder, and
punished accordingly.[28] That is to say, society, by treating
indiscretions with a puritanic severity, tempted women into
concealments of a dangerous kind, and then punished the crimes
which itself had produced, and this upon merely negative evidence.
Terrible as this act was, it did not wholly avail to make women
brave the severity of that social punishment which stood on the other
side. It is understood to have had many victims. In January 1705, no
fewer than four young women were in the Tolbooth of Aberdeen at
once for concealing pregnancy and 1690.
parturition, and all in a state of such
poverty that the authorities had to maintain them. On the 23d July
1706, the Privy Council dealt with a petition from Bessie Muckieson,
who had been two years ‘incarcerat’ in the Edinburgh Tolbooth on
account of the death of a child born by her, of which Robert Bogie in
Kennieston, in Fife, was the father. She had not concealed her
pregnancy, but the infant being born in secret, and found dead, she
was tried under the act.
At her trial she had made ingenuous confession of her offence,
while affirming that the child had not been ‘wronged,’ and she
protested that even the concealment of the birth was ‘through the
treacherous dealing and abominable counsel of the said Robert
Bogie.’ ‘Seeing she was a poor miserable object, and ane ignorant
wretch destitute of friends, throwing herself at their Lordships’
footstool for pity and accustomed clemency’—petitioning that her
just sentence might be changed into banishment, ‘that she might be a
living monument of a true penitent for her abominable guilt’—the
Lords looked relentingly on the case, and adjudged Bessie to pass
forth of the kingdom for the remainder of her life.[29]
It was seldom that such leniency was shewn. In March 1709, a
woman named Christian Adam was executed at Edinburgh for the
imputed crime of child-murder, and on the ensuing 6th of April, two
others suffered at the same place on the same account. In all these
three cases, occurring within four weeks of each other, the women

Employment Law For Business 9th Edition Bennett Alexander Test Bank Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Employment Law For Business 9th Edition Bennett Alexander Test Bank Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employment Law For Business 9th Edition Bennett Alexander Test Bank Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employment Law for Business 9th

Edition Bennett-Alexander Test Bank

15) Glass walls refer to:

17) Which of the following is NOT true of family responsibility discrimination?

Additionally, it appears that management at TEDCO engages in gender-plus discrimination in that

There had been for some time in Scotland June 7.

It is incidental to liberating and reforming parties that they seldom

The chief of the clan Mackintosh, usually June.

A poor young woman belonging to a July 10.

There is something interesting in the July 26.

James Broich, skipper of Dundee, was proceeding in his scout to

It was now acknowledged of the glass- Oct. 10.

The magistrates of Edinburgh were Dec. 2.

A few hot-headed Perthshire Jacobites, Feb. 28.

In religious contentions, there is a cowardice in the strongest

You might also like