Question 1

Octavia is an employee of DFC, Inc., a defense contractor. She discloses to the Department of Justice information relating to fraud in carrying out a defense contract on which she is working. DFC subsequently fires her. Octavia then files a lawsuit against DFC for violating the Federal Whistleblower Statute.

Accepted Answer

A

Question 2

Mathias is an employee for Burton Commercial Realty. He receives a modest salary, however, his salary is supplemented by substantial commissions. He has been working on a commercial real estate deal for 5 months, two weeks before the deal closes, he is fired and Burton does not pay him his commission:

Accepted Answer

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing exists in all employment relationships in California. If an employee is terminated before they are able to receive their commission, this can be seen as a breach of this covenant. Therefore, Mathias has a cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith.

Question 3

When a party wins a Motion for Summary Judgment

Accepted Answer

When a party wins a Motion for Summary Judgment, it means there are no triable issues of fact and the case is resolved in favor of the winning party without a trial. Therefore, choice C is the correct answer. Choices A and B are incorrect as they imply the existence of triable issues of fact and the need for further proceedings in the lower court.

Question 4

Davis Hosiery Mills has each new employee sign a form acknowledging receipt of the company's handbook. The handbook states that employees will be terminated for good cause only. It also contains a disclaimer, in small print, which informs the employee that the employment relationship is "at will." An employee of Davis Hosiery sues for wrongful termination.

Accepted Answer

The employee may have a case depending on the state's laws regarding the conspicuousness of the disclaimer. Just because a handbook states that termination must be for good cause only, it does not necessarily override the at-will employment relationship. However, if the disclaimer is not prominently or conspicuously displayed, it may not be enforceable. Losing a copy of the handbook does not affect the validity of the disclaimer.

Question 5

If the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case in a Title VII lawsuit, the claim will be remanded to the EEOC.

Accepted Answer

If the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case in a Title VII lawsuit, the court may grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the case. The case would not be remanded to the EEOC.

Question 6

Colton Manufacturing shuts down 3 manufacturing facilities without prior notice to its 3000 employees. Colton has graciously offered to provide outsourcing assistance to its displaced employees and informed them of their right to continue to receive health insurance coverage through COBRA for eighteen months. Colton has no further liability to its former employees.

Accepted Answer

Colton may still have liabilities under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which requires 60 days notice for large layoffs, and other potential legal obligations such as severance pay or unemployment benefits.

Question 7

If Sally's employer subjects her to more severe discipline for an act of misconduct than a similarly situated fellow employee not in her protected group for the same act of misconduct, Sally is being subjected to disparate treatment discrimination.

Accepted Answer

Disparate treatment discrimination occurs when employees are treated differently due to their protected class status (such as race, gender, or religion) in similar situations. In this scenario, if Sally is being treated differently than a similarly situated employee who is not in her protected group for the same act of misconduct, it would be considered disparate treatment discrimination.

Question 8

An appellee is the party who appealed the case to the court of appeals.

Accepted Answer

An appellee is the party who won the case in the lower court and is responding to the appeal in the court of appeals. The appellant is the party who initiated the appeal.

Question 9

Major Tire Company's plant in Charleston, South Carolina was destroyed when Hurricane Hazel hit the coast. The company officially closed the facility after reviewing the damage and terminated all 500 workers. The company did not give the employees 60 days' notice, and it is liable under the WARN Act.

Accepted Answer

The WARN Act requires 60 days' notice for plant closings, but exceptions exist for "unforeseeable business circumstances" such as natural disasters, which may exempt the company from liability.

Question 10

The American legal system is based on stare decisis, a system of using legal precedent.

Accepted Answer

Stare decisis is a fundamental principle of the American legal system, which means that courts use prior court opinions to guide their decisions in similar cases. This allows for consistency and predictability in the law.

Question 11

An employer can successfully defend a charge of disparate treatment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken regarding the charging party.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, where the burden initially falls on the charging party to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, following which the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken. If the employer is able to do so, the burden shifts back to the charging party to prove that the employer's reason was pretextual and that discrimination was the actual motive.

Question 12

Hannah Bing was hired by Friendly Catering Company. The employee handbook stated that employees would only be terminated for good cause. Hannah was fired and replaced by her supervisor's niece. Hannah cannot file a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Friendly Catering Company because she is an employee-at-will.

Accepted Answer

Although Hannah is an employee-at-will, the employee handbook stated that employees would only be terminated for good cause. Therefore, if she was terminated without good cause, she may have a legal claim for wrongful discharge, even as an at-will employee.

Question 13

Questions asked during idle conversational chat during preemployment interviews or included on job applications may unwittingly be the basis for Title VII claims of disparate impact.

Accepted Answer

Idle conversational chat or questions on job applications may unintentionally lead to discrimination based on protected characteristics, such as race or gender, which could result in a disparate impact claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. To avoid such claims, employers should ensure that any questions asked during interviews or included on job applications are job-related and do not discriminate against any protected groups.

Question 14

Ms. Lee was employed as a secretary at Burton Trucking. She was fired from her job when she refused to perjure herself at a trial where her employer was the defendant. She filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against her former employer. Ms. Lee will

Accepted Answer

If the state where the lawsuit was filed recognizes a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, Ms. Lee can prevail in her lawsuit. This exception allows employees to sue their employers if they were fired for refusing to violate a well-established public policy (such as refusing to commit perjury). Ms. Lee will have to prove that the reason for her termination was her refusal to perjure herself, and that this refusal was based on a well-established public policy. Whether or not she was telling the truth is not the determining factor in this type of claim.

Question 15

Mr. Jones was employed by Barker Sock Company as a sewing machine repairman in Plant #5. He, along with the other 700 employees, was informed that the plant had been permanently closed by a written notice on the door when he arrived at work.

Accepted Answer

Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, certain employers are required to give a 60-day notice before closing a plant, unless the closing is due to unforeseeable business circumstances or a natural disaster. In this situation, Mr. Jones may be eligible to receive his salary and benefits for the next 60 days. However, he should consult with an employment lawyer or his union representative to fully understand his rights and options. Option A is incorrect because filing for unemployment benefits is not Mr. Jones' only recourse. Option B is incorrect because being an employee-at-will does not address the issue of plant closure and its legal implications. Option D is incorrect because option C is the correct answer.

Question 16

Mr. Johnson, a white male, testified for the plaintiffs in a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by a black female employee against his employer, Security Bank. He had been advised by his manager not to get involved. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Johnson was fired.

Accepted Answer

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects an employee who participates in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing on a colleague's complaint of discrimination. Therefore, Mr. Johnson may have a case for retaliatory discharge, even though he is not a member of the protected class and is an at-will employee. The fact that he testified on behalf of the plaintiff in a discrimination lawsuit brought against his employer means that he participated in the proceeding and is thus protected under Title VII.

Question 17

Cortney was employed at Brunson County Elementary School as a cook. Her supervisor routinely took extra food and other supplies home. Cortney was fired after she reported the theft to the police and local newspaper.

Accepted Answer

The situation described falls under the "whistle-blowers" exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. Cortney was fired after reporting the theft to the authorities and the press. This action may be considered retaliation and is illegal under the "whistle-blowers" exception. Therefore, Cortney may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge. Option A and C are incorrect because they do not take into account the legal protections afforded to whistle-blowers. Option D is incorrect because an employee who has been fired for whistle-blowing may have legal recourse.

Question 18

The employment-at-will doctrine means that

Accepted Answer

The employment-at-will doctrine is a legal principle that allows an employer to terminate an employee for any reason, as long as it is not a violation of public policy or against the law. This means that an employer can fire an employee for reasons such as poor performance or a bad attitude, without having to provide a specific reason. However, they cannot fire an employee for reasons such as discrimination or retaliation, which would be against the law. A and B are incorrect because they are not related to the employment-at-will doctrine, and D is incorrect because government employees also have constitutional rights while on the job.

Question 19

Promissory Estoppel is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine if the employee can show that he/she relied on the employer's promise to his/her detriment.

Accepted Answer

Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that may be used as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, which allows employers to terminate employees at any time for any reason (or no reason at all) in most states. If an employer makes a promise to an employee, and the employee relies on that promise to his/her detriment, the employer may be estopped (prevented) from breaking its promise and terminating the employee without legal consequences. This can give employees some protection against career damages if they act on a promise by an employer, and that promise is later broken.

Question 20

Punitive damages are permitted in Title VII cases, but not in disparate impact cases or against government employers.

Accepted Answer

Title VII allows punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination, but not in disparate impact cases or against government employers due to sovereign immunity.

Quiz 2: The Employment Law Toolkit: Resources for Understanding the Law and Recurring Legal Concepts