Question 1

In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America the appeals court held that Lewis failed to provide adequate evidence of retaliation by her employer as the employer's defense was not a mere pretext.

Accepted Answer

In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, the appeals court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer on Lewis's retaliation claim, finding that Lewis had provided sufficient evidence that the employer's defense could be seen as a pretext for retaliation.

Question 2

If a discrimination suit involves mixed evidence about discrimination and job performance, the Supreme Court has held that the jury must give the benefit of doubt to the plaintiff.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has not established a rule regarding giving the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff in cases involving mixed evidence about discrimination and job performance. The courts evaluate the evidence and make a decision based on the facts of each case.

Question 3

According to the Supreme Court, in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, vicarious liability is not likely to be imposed on an employer for employment discrimination if an employee who suffered discrimination failed to take advantage of a quality complaint process that existed within the organization before bringing suit.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately reflects the ruling in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders by the Supreme Court. The court held that an employer may not be vicariously liable for discrimination if they had provided an effective complaint process, and the employee did not utilize it before filing a lawsuit.

Question 4

If a plaintiff meets the discrimination test announced by the Court in McDonnell-Douglas, the plaintiff has a prima facie case of discrimination.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. The McDonnell-Douglas test sets out the criteria that a plaintiff must meet to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. If they meet the criteria, they have successfully established a presumption of discrimination, which shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to provide a non-discriminatory reason for the challenged employment action.

Question 5

In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America the appeals court held that Lewis presented a prima facie case of discrimination and that Heartland's defense appeared to be a pretext.

Accepted Answer

The statement accurately summarizes the holding of the appeals court in Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America.

Question 6

Employers may legally make employment decisions that result in disparate treatment so as to protect women employees.

Accepted Answer

Employers making employment decisions that result in disparate treatment based on gender, including "protecting" women, would violate anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unless a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception applies, which is very narrowly defined and does not generally cover protectionist policies.

Question 7

According to the Supreme Court, in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, an employer is much less likely to be liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor if the employer had an effective program in place to handle discrimination complaints by employees.

Accepted Answer

This is the holding of the Supreme Court in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth. The court outlined the affirmative defense of an employer, which involves a showing that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior, and the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm.

Question 8

If an employee is "driven away" from their job and quits due to discriminatory abuse, there is said to be constructive discharge that may be actionable under Title VII.

Accepted Answer

Constructive discharge occurs when an employee is forced to resign because working conditions have become intolerable due to discrimination or harassment. This is considered a form of illegal discrimination under Title VII, and employees who experience constructive discharge may have legal recourse.

Question 9

To prove discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must prove, among other elements of proof, that he or she is a member of a protected class, and that there was an adverse job action.

Accepted Answer

To prove discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must prove various elements of proof, including membership in a protected class and an adverse job action.

Question 10

If an employee makes a prima facie case, but the employer gives a good business reason for the action involved, then it may be necessary for the jury to review the entire situation to understand if discrimination dominated the employment decision.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. When an employee makes a prima facie case, it means they have presented enough evidence to establish a case of discrimination. However, if the employer can provide a valid business reason for their action, then it becomes a question of whether or not discrimination was the primary factor in the decision. In such cases, a jury may need to review the entire situation in order to determine if discrimination played a role.

Question 11

If an employer offers a defense to a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must then prove that the defense is only a pretext.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. If an employer provides a legitimate defense for their alleged discriminatory actions, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the employer's defense is simply a cover-up or pretext for discrimination.

Question 12

In reviewing employment discrimination cases, the Supreme Court has noted that the employment relationship is rooted in agency law so vicarious liability can be imposed on the employer for discriminatory practices not properly controlled.

Accepted Answer

The statement is true. The Supreme Court has recognized the agency relationship between an employer and employee and has held employers vicariously liable for discriminatory practices carried out by their employees or agents.

Question 13

If a plaintiff proves a prima facie case of employment discrimination, they have won their suit as there is no defense for prima facie discrimination.

Accepted Answer

While proving a prima facie case of employment discrimination is an important step in a discrimination lawsuit, it is not a guarantee of victory. Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. If the defendant is able to provide such a reason, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer's explanation is merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Therefore, there is a defense for prima facie discrimination.

Question 14

In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America the court held that there was "no clear evidence" of sex discrimination, so plaintiff could not prevail.

Accepted Answer

In Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer, finding that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of sex discrimination to proceed to trial.

Question 15

If an employee makes a prima facie case of employment discrimination, the employer must give a nondiscriminatory reason for the decision that was made.

Accepted Answer

If an employee makes a prima facie case of employment discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to provide a nondiscriminatory reason for their decision. This is known as the McDonnell Douglas framework, which provides a legal standard for proving discrimination in employment cases.

Question 16

If an employee files a complaint about discrimination, and the complaint is not valid, then if the employer inflicts punishment for filing the complaint, there are no grounds for a claim of retaliation.

Accepted Answer

Even if the complaint is not valid, an employer cannot legally retaliate against an employee for filing a complaint. Retaliation is illegal regardless of the validity of the underlying claim.

Question 17

If a plaintiff, who has filed a Title VII case, proves a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden is on the defendant to present evidence that the claim is untrue or that there is a legitimate reason for the action taken.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the burden-shifting framework or McDonnell Douglas test, where the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant once a prima facie case of discrimination is established. The defendant must provide evidence to refute the claim or show a non-discriminatory reason for their actions.

Question 18

If an employer offers a pretext as a defense to a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer will win.

Accepted Answer

A pretext is not a valid defense to discrimination. If the plaintiff can show that the employer's stated reasons for their actions were merely a cover-up for discrimination, they can still win their case. The burden then shifts back to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their actions.

Question 19

According to the Supreme Court, in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, an employer is not liable for hostile environment discrimination by a supervisor if the employee suffered no adverse job consequence.

Accepted Answer

In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, the Supreme Court held that an employer may be held liable for hostile environment discrimination by a supervisor even if the employee did not suffer any adverse job consequences if the employer did not take appropriate corrective action to address the misconduct.

Question 20

According to the Supreme Court, in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, an employer is not liable for a complaint of sexual harassment by a supervisor if the employee never complained to superiors about the problem.

Accepted Answer

In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, the Supreme Court established that an employer may be held vicariously liable for a supervisor's sexual harassment even if the employee did not report the conduct if the employer did not take reasonable care to prevent or correct the harassment and the harassment resulted in a tangible employment action, such as termination or demotion.

Quiz 16: Employment Discrimination