Question 1

An employee may have a national origin discrimination claim if the worker is simply perceived to be of a certain origin,even if the individual is not,in fact,of that origin.

Accepted Answer

In addition to national origin encompassing an employee's place of birth, it also includes ethnic characteristics or origins, as well as physical, linguistic, or cultural traits closely associated with a national origin group. It also may serve as the basis for a national origin discrimination claim if an employee is perceived by an employer to be a member of a particular national origin group, whether or not the individual is in fact of that origin.

Question 2

The Fair Labor Standards Act protects undocumented workers from abuse at workplaces.

Accepted Answer

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) set forth that employers' liability for monetary remedies irrespective of a worker's unauthorized status promotes the goal of deterring unlawful discrimination without undermining the purposes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The Fair Labor Standards Act also protects undocumented workers from abuse.

Question 3

Nesbitt hires Francois,an alien working in the United States with the legal authority to do so.One month later,Francois loses his right to work in the United States.Which of the following holds true in this case?

Accepted Answer

Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute a violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) if Nesbitt knows that Francois is now an unauthorized alien. It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment, to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or had become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

Question 4

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)has established only civil penalties and no criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens.

Accepted Answer

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) established civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. Generally, fines are not imposed for paperwork violations alone or for employment of aliens whose illegal status was unknown, unless employers refused to comply or other egregious factors existed.

Question 5

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,legal aliens are permitted access to certain government and other positions by statute.

Accepted Answer

Title VII's (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin does not necessarily prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship; this only occurs where citizenship discrimination "has the purpose or effect" of national origin discrimination or where it is pretext for national origin discrimination. In fact, legal aliens (noncitizens residing in the United States) are often restricted from access to certain government or other positions by statute.

Question 6

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)prohibits discrimination against legal aliens in favor of U.S.citizens.

Accepted Answer

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), in contrast to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does prohibit employers in certain circumstances from discriminating against employees on the basis of their citizenship or intended citizenship, and from hiring those not legally authorized for employment in the United States. However, the IRCA does allow discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against legal aliens.

Question 7

Himiona,who belongs to the Maori tribe,aspires to be a deputy sheriff in Outer Maple Grove County.Himiona sports a small moko tattoo across his cheeks and nose as a symbol of his heritage.Per the dress code,however,sheriffs are not allowed to have any visible tattoos.Himiona is told that he will need to remove his tattoo before he can apply to be a deputy sheriff.Which of the following will hold true in this scenario?

Accepted Answer

Outer Maple Grove County can defend itself against Himiona's claim because a dress code is permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While an employer would be required to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious attire, there is no similar responsibility to accommodate an employee's attire of national origin unless it can be shown to overlap with his or her religion.

Question 8

Henri,who runs a French restaurant,wants his diners to have an authentic culinary experience.Thus,he wants to recruit qualified individuals of French origin for his restaurant.Henri can avoid a claim of national origin discrimination and still limit the job to individuals of French origin by showing that:

Accepted Answer

Henri can avoid a claim of national origin discrimination and still limit the job to individuals of French origin by showing that an applicant's ability to speak fluent French and understand French cuisine are bona fide occupational qualifications. An employer may show that national origin is actually a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for a job. That is, an employer may explain why a specific national origin is necessary for the position applied for, why it is a legitimate job requirement that is reasonably necessary for the employer's particular business.

Question 9

Smith,the manager of a manufacturing unit,issues a written workplace policy stating that any employee who is related to people of Latin American origin will be ineligible for a promotion to the supervisory level.This workplace policy issued by Smith:

Accepted Answer

The workplace policy issued by Smith violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it will result in discrimination against individuals who are married to people of a specific national origin. It may serve as the basis for a national origin discrimination claim if an employee is identified with or connected to a person of a specific national origin, such as when someone suffers discrimination because he or she is married to a person of a certain ethnic heritage.

Question 10

Thomas hires an alien worker named Desai to work for his firm.Before being employed,Desai is required to produce the statutorily required documents demonstrating his right to work in the United States.However,because of Desai's qualifications and the cost benefits Thomas's company will incur if he is hired,Thomas decides to employ Desai without asking him to provide the necessary documents.Which of the following holds true in this case?

Accepted Answer

Thomas can be held liable for an unlawful employment practice under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire for employment in the United States an individual without verification of his or her employment eligibility.

Question 11

If an employee is consistently subject to harassment based on national origin but never informs his or her employer,the employer may still be liable for not being aware.

Accepted Answer

Employers have the responsibility to prevent and correct any national origin harassment that may take place within its working environment. However, that responsibility is limited to occurrences of harassment of which the employer knows or should have known. If an employee is consistently subject to abuse but never informs his or her employer and the supervisors at her or his workplace have no other way of knowing the abuse is taking place, the employer may not be liable.

Question 12

Chuntao,an employee of Chinese origin,works as a sales representative at Arcade Recyclers International.Her supervisor,Jim,persistently refers to her as "Charlene" instead of "Chuntao." Although she objects and asks to be called by her rightful name,Jim continues to call her "Charlene" for over a year and justifies his actions by saying that an American-sounding name would increase her chances of success and would be more acceptable to Arcade's clientele.Chuntao brings a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Which of the following holds true in this case?

Accepted Answer

Arcade Recyclers International will be liable to Chuntao because ethnic characteristics go beyond skin color and other physical traits and can include names. In addition to national origin encompassing an employee's place of birth, it also includes ethnic characteristics or origins, as well as physical, linguistic, or cultural traits closely associated with a national origin group. It also may serve as the basis for a national origin discrimination claim if an employee has a surname that is generally associated with a national origin group.

Question 13

In the case of Garcia v.Spun Steak Co.,the court followed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC)guidelines and held that the English-only rule in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Accepted Answer

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) takes the position that English-only rules applied at all times or only applied to certain foreign speakers are presumptively discriminatory, although the courts have not always agreed with that approach. In the case of Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., the court rejected the argument that the policy was discriminatory because it denied Spanish-speaking employees the ability to express their cultural heritage, denied them a privilege of employment enjoyed by speakers of English as a first language, and created an atmosphere of inferiority and intimidation. The court stated that "Title VII is not meant to protect against rules that merely inconvenience some employees, even if the inconvenience falls regularly on a protected class."

Question 14

Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act's (IRCA)anti-discrimination provisions,employers with 4 to 14 employees are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of national origin.

Accepted Answer

Employers not subject to Title VII's (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibitions because of their small size may still be sufficiently large to be covered by the Immigration Reform and Control Act's anti-discrimination provisions; those employers with 4 to 14 employees are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of national origin; and employers with four or more employees may not discriminate on the basis of citizenship.
Multiple Choice Questions

Question 15

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)created a special classification,"Code Z," to designate complaints from undocumented workers regarding workplace abuses.

Accepted Answer

In the aftermath of September 11, hate crimes against individuals of Middle Eastern descent dramatically increased. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) created a special classification, "Code Z," to designate complaints of "backlash discrimination" from individuals who are-or are perceived to be-Muslim, Sikh, Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian.

Question 16

Discrimination based upon citizenship status,or "alienage," is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Accepted Answer

Some forms of discrimination-such as discrimination based upon citizenship status, or "alienage," as distinct from the specific nation of origin-are not prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, the law remains unsettled regarding Title VII's application to cases of discrimination against a worker based on the national origin of the worker's spouse or partner.

Question 17

The right to speak one's native language when the employee is bilingual is not an immutable characteristic that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects.

Accepted Answer

A job requirement that an employee must be fluent in English is legal if fluency is required to perform the work effectively. It has been held that the right to speak one's native language when the employee is bilingual is not an immutable characteristic that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects.

Question 18

Melanie,a white female employed at The Office Corner for three months,is married to Muhammad,who is of Middle Eastern descent.Melanie has been subjected to verbal abuse almost every day ever since her co-workers became aware of her husband's ethnicity.She has been called a "traitor" and a "terrorist." Her co-workers refuse to work with her,and her supervisor has condoned this behavior by assigning her tasks in the stockroom when previously,she assisted customers in the electronics department.Which of the following holds true in this scenario?

Accepted Answer

Melanie does have a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because she is being harassed based on the national origin of her husband. It may serve as the basis for a national origin discrimination claim if an employee is identified with or connected to a person of a specific national origin, such as when someone suffers discrimination because he or she is married to a person of a certain ethnic heritage.

Question 19

The discharge of a teacher from her services is upheld when,although fluent in English,she spoke with such a thick accent that her students found it difficult to follow her.

Accepted Answer

An employer is permitted to choose not to hire or promote an employee to a position that requires clear oral communication in English if the employee's accent substantially affects his or her ability to communicate clearly. For example, where a teacher was fluent in English but spoke with such a thick accent that her students had a difficult time understanding her, her discharge was upheld.

Question 20

Margaret comes to work in clothes that are highly reflective of her national origin.This happens to violate the dress code of her workplace.After being politely asked to follow the office dress code several times by her supervisor,Margaret is finally asked to return home and change into clothing that conforms to the company's dress code.Which of the following holds true if Margaret decides to file a discrimination claim based on national origin?

Accepted Answer

Margaret's employer can defend the dress code because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not require an employer to accommodate an employee's attire of national origin. No accommodation of one's national origin is required of employers. While an employer would be required to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious attire, there is no similar responsibility to accommodate an employee's attire of national origin, unless it can be shown to overlap with his or her religion.

Quiz 7: National Origin Discrimination