Test Bank For Employment Law For Business 10th Edition Dawn Bennett Alexander Laura Hartman

Test Bank for Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition, Dawn Bennett-Alexander Laura Hartma
Test Bank for Employment Law for Business, 10th

Edition, Dawn Bennett-Alexander Laura Hartman
To download the complete and accurate content document, go to:

https://testbankbell.com/download/test-bank-for-employment-law-for-business-10th-e
dition-dawn-bennett-alexander-laura-hartman/
Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

TRUE/FALSE - Write 'T' if the statement is true and 'F' if the statement is false.
1) Citizenship and national origin are the same.
⊚ true
⊚ false
Question Details
Difficulty : 01 Easy
Topic : Citizenship and the Immigration Reform and Control Act
Learning Objective : 07-05 Identify the difference between citizenship and national origin.
Bloom's : Remember
AACSB : Analytical Thinking
Accessibility : Keyboard Navigation
Gradable : automatic
Accessibility : Screen Reader Compatible
2) 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.
⊚ true
⊚ false
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
Topic : Regulatory Overview
Learning Objective : 07-03 Explain the legal status surrounding "English-only policies" in the workpl
3) An employer who enters into a contract with a government agency has an affirmative
obligation to ensure that Asians are hired and retained without regard to their religion or national
origin based on the Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion or National Origin.
⊚ true
⊚ false
Version 1 1
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
Topic : Harassment on the Basis of National Origin
Learning Objective : 07-04 Describe a claim for harassment based on national origin and discuss how i
Difficulty : 02 Medium
4) The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) requires that a court find an employer
liable for national origin harassment even if most would say that the conduct is not offensive and
the individual involved is just overly sensitive.
⊚ true
⊚ false
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
Learning Objective : 07-06 Explain the extent of protection under the Immigration Reform and Control
5) In King v. Township of East Lampeter, the court found that the Amish are a distinct
racial group and have a separate ethnic identity beyond religious observance. Thus they were
protected under section 1981.
⊚ true
⊚ false
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
Topic : Alternate Basis for National Origin or Citizenship Discrimination: Section 1981
Version 1 2
6) An employer may decide to not hire an applicant solely because they wear a headscarf or
turban if there is a policy in place stating that employees may not wear hats, etc. at work.
⊚ true
⊚ false
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
MULTIPLE CHOICE - Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or
answers the question.
7) In the case of Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., the court:
A) 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.
B) followed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) guidelines and
held that the English-only rule in the workplace did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
C) did not follow 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.
D) did not follow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) guidelines
and held that the English-only rule in the workplace does not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of the 1964.
Version 1 3
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
8) Who is charged with combating civil rights violations against Arab, Sikh, and South-
Asian Americans, as well as those who are perceived to be members of those groups?
A) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

B) The U.S. Department of Labor
C) The U.S. Department of Justice
D) The National Labor Relations Board
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
9) The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA):
Version 1 4
A) allows discrimination in favor of U.S. Citizens (as opposed to non-U.S. Citizens
legally residing in the U.S.) but only so long as the employer can demonstrate that citizenship is
a BFOQ.
B) prohibits employers in certain circumstances from discriminating against employees
on the basis on their citizenship.
C) makes it legal for employers to knowingly hire those not legally authorized for
employment in the United States.
D) prohibits discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against legal "aliens" (non-U.S.
citizens legally residing in the United States).
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
10) Which of the following is a defense to a claim of discrimination under the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA)?
A) negligent discrimination
B) intentional discrimination
C) Neither negligent discrimination nor intentional discrimination
D) Both negligent discrimination and intentional discrimination
Question Details
Bloom's : Understand
Version 1 5
11) Which penalties can be imposed for violations of the Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA)?
A) criminal penalties only

B) civil penalties only
C) criminal and civil penalties
D) injunctions only
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
12) National origin was included in Title VII's list of protected classes:
A) To ensure that illegal immigrants are given a fair chance at employment.

B) As a last-minute attempt to add controversy to the legislation so that it would not be
enacted.
C) To ensure that employers do not make employment decisions based on preconceived
notions about employees' or applicants' country of origin.
D) To satisfy international critics of the legislation who suggested that the protection it
afforded was simply not enough.
Question Details
Difficulty : 03 Hard
Topic : The Changing Workforce
Learning Objective : 07-01 Describe the impact and implications of the changing demographics of the A
Bloom's : Apply
AACSB : Reflective Thinking
Version 1 6
13) Nesbitt hires Francois, an alien working in the United States with the legal authority to do
so. One month later, Francois loses his right to work in the United States. Which of the following
holds true in this case?
A) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois cannot constitute a violation of the

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) under any circumstance.
B) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute national origin
discrimination against individuals with American citizenship.
C) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois will constitute a violation of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) if Nesbitt knows that Francois has become an
unauthorized alien.
D) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois is not unlawful because it is an unfair
immigration-related practice for a person to discriminate against any individual based on their
national origin.
Question Details
Learning Objective : 07-01 Describe the impact and implications of the changing demographics of the A
Bloom's : Apply
14) 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 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?
Version 1 7
A) Melanie does not have a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 because she is not a member of a protected class.
B) Melanie does have a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 because she is being harassed based on the national origin of her husband.
C) Melanie does not have a national origin discrimination claim because she has only
been employed for three months.
D) Melanie does have a discrimination claim based on race only if she is a citizen of the
United States.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
Learning Objective : 07-02 Define the prima facie case for national origin discrimination under Title
15) Magda 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, Magda 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 Magda decides to file a discrimination claim based on national origin?
A) Magda has a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for national origin
discrimination because it guarantees her the right to freedom of cultural expression.
B) The employer can defend the dress code if it can show that Magda's attire overlaps
with her religion.
C) Magda'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.
D) Magda has a claim under Title VII the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for national origin
discrimination if she can prove that her attire does not encourage other employees to dress
casually.
Version 1 8
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
16) Which of the following must an employee demonstrate to successfully claim

discrimination based on national origin?
A) The employer made an employment decision against the applicant.

B) The applicant was a member of a protected class based on gender, race or another
Title VII category (besides national origin).
C) The position was filled by someone who was a member of a protected class.
D) The applicant was not qualified for the position for which he or she applied.
Question Details
17) Jingfei, an employee of Chinese origin, works as a sales representative at Global

Recyclers International. Her supervisor, Ralph, persistently refers to her as "Julie" instead of
"Jingfei." Although she objects and asks to be called by her rightful name, Ralph continues to
call her "Julie" 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 Global's clientele.
Jingfei brings a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which of the
following holds true in this case?
Version 1 9
A) Global Recyclers International will not be liable to Jingfei because the use of "Julie"
is neither a racial epithet nor a description of her physical ethnic traits.
B) Global Recyclers International will be liable to Jingfei because ethnic characteristics
go beyond skin color and other physical traits and can include names.
C) Global Recyclers International will not be liable to Jingfei because Ralph did not
intend his use of "Julie" to be derogatory of her national origin.
D) Global Recyclers International will be liable to Jingfei because Title VII provides
protection against discrimination based on a victim's country of citizenship.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
18) Amiri, who belongs to the Maori tribe, aspires to be a deputy sheriff in Upper Elm
County. Amiri 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. Amiri 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?
A) Amiri will prevail in a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 because his tattoo honors his heritage.
B) Upper Elm County can defend itself against Amiri's claim because a dress code is
permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
C) Upper Elm County can defend itself against Amiri's claim if it can be shown that the
tattoo overlaps with his religion.
D) Amiri will prevail in a national origin discrimination claim if he uses the bona fide
occupational qualification defense to show that his tattoo does not disrupt the dress code.
Version 1 10
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
19) Pierre, who runs a French cafe, wants his diners to have an authentic culinary experience.
Thus, he wants to recruit qualified individuals of French origin for his cafe. Pierre can avoid a
claim of national origin discrimination and still limit the job to individuals of French origin by
showing that:
A) an applicant's ability to speak fluent French and understand French cuisine are bona
fide occupational qualifications.
B) U.S citizens view people with French ancestry as charming.
C) it is difficult for people with French ancestry to be employed in other jobs.
D) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows employers to discriminate against employees or
applicants on the basis of their national origin without any legitimate cause.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
20) An adverse employment action in a national origin discrimination cases includes:
A) a demotion.
B) termination.
C) removal of privileges.
D) all of these choices are correct.
Version 1 11
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
21) Vincente, a Mexican-American, is five feet five inches tall, which is the average height
for Mexican-American men. He applies for a job as a mechanic with Rev Motors but is not hired
as he does not meet the minimum height requirement for the position, which is five feet eight
inches. If the height requirement cannot be justified by business necessity, which of the
following will hold true in this scenario?
A) Vincente has a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 if he can show that the height requirement adversely impacts Mexican-Americans.
B) Vincente has a national origin discrimination claim under the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 because he is a member of a protected class.
C) Vincente does not have a national origin discrimination claim as long as he is a citizen
of the United States.
D) Vincente does not have a national origin discrimination claim because Rev Motors
applied the height requirement to all applicants.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
22) Dalip, an Asian male, is fired after being late for work three times. His employer has a
rule that employees may be fired after being late for work twice. The rule is enforced
consistently against all employees. In this scenario, Dalip:
Version 1 12
A) has a national origin discrimination claim based on disparate impact.
B) has a national origin discrimination claim based on disparate treatment.
C) has a discrimination claim if he uses the bona fide occupational qualification defense
to show that his employer's actions were unlawful.
D) does not have a national origin discrimination claim because his employer was only
trying to enforce a neutral policy.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
23) HealthSmart, a private hospital, employs five workers of Hispanic descent in its
maintenance department. Though they were told that they would be performing different tasks on
a rotation basis, the maintenance supervisor assigns only the five of them, out of the total 20
maintenance employees, to clean the morgue and the basement every time. Although they
requested the hospital's management to change their duties, no changes were made. Which of the
following holds true in this case?
A) HealthSmart will be liable for national origin discrimination because Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides protection against discrimination based on country of
citizenship.
B) HealthSmart will be liable for national origin discrimination because it illegally
segregated the employees based on their national origin, resulting in disparate treatment.
C) HealthSmart will not be liable for national origin discrimination because the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employers to discriminate in favor of U.S. citizens.
D) HealthSmart will not be liable for national origin discrimination based on the court's
ruling inGarcia v. Spun Steak Co.
Version 1 13
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
24) Once an employee has articulated a prima facie case of discrimination based on national
origin, the burden falls on his or her employer to:
A) identify a bona fide occupational qualification.

B) identify a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
C) establish that no other employee was subjected to such disparate treatment.
D) both identify a bona fide occupational qualification and identify a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
25) An employer considering an "English-only" job requirement should be aware that:
Version 1 14
A) "English-only" job requirements are not permitted regardless of the circumstances.
B) The employer should carefully consider the degree of fluency necessary for each job.
This degree of fluency may not be the same for all areas of the workplace, so a blanket policy
may not work. The employer should establish a level of English fluency for each area, as
appropriate.
C) The employer should carefully consider the degree of fluency necessary for the
workplace, and should craft a policy that reflects the minimum degree of fluency necessary for
any job within the workplace to avoid a charge of discrimination.
D) If the employer employs 100 or more non-English speaking employees, the employer
may not implement an English-only rule, and must provide a translation for all important
workplace instructions based on the language spoken by the majority of non-English speaking
employees.
Question Details
Topic : English-only Policies
26) If an employer enforces an English-only policy in all areas of the workplace and at all
times, including break times and other free time, the:
A) employer's policy is presumptively discriminatory according to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
B) employer is much safer from a charge of national origin discrimination than an
employer who only enforces the policy in certain areas and at certain times.
C) employer impermissibly violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects the
ability of workers to express their cultural heritage at the workplace.
D) employer's policy is not unlawful because all individuals, irrespective of their national
origin, are required to speak English in the United States.
Version 1 15
Question Details
27) According to Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., a facially neutral workplace policy will not
cause a disparate impact with respect to a privilege of employment on the basis of national origin
if all but which of the following exists?
A) Employer requires only a certain group of employees to adhere to the policy at all
times.
B) If the employer defines the privilege narrowly.
C) If the policy is one that an affected employee can readily observe.
D) If nonobservance is purely a matter of individual preference.
Question Details
28) Employers can avoid liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for national
origin discrimination after implementing an English-only rule if they can show that the rule:
A) is necessary to maintain supervisory control of the workplace.

B) is used as a sole basis to promote employees within the workplace.
C) has been primarily used to help differentiate employees based on their national origin.
D) has to be followed by employees at all times.
Version 1 16
Question Details
29) Labuk is a 20-year employee of Whirley Corporation. During his career with Whirley,
Labuk has felt uncomfortable with his supervisor, Bob, because of his behavior. On one
occasion, Bob told him that foreigners should stop seeking jobs in the United States if they
cannot perform. On another occasion, Bob yelled at Labuk and called him an "idiot." Which of
the following may be true in this case?
A) Labuk has a harassment claim based on national origin under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 because he belongs to a protected racial class.
B) Labuk does not have a harassment claim based on national origin because these two
incidents, although offensive, do not create a hostile work environment.
C) Labuk has a harassment claim based on national origin because Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 provides protection against discrimination based on country of citizenship.
D) Labuk does not have a harassment claim based on national origin because the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employers to discriminate in favor of U.S. citizens.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
30) Abdel applies for a job as a bus driver with the Overland Omnibus Corporation. Abdel's
employer is worried that it might not be safe to allow someone of Middle Eastern descent to
drive around a bus full of people. Therefore, Abdel is asked to submit to a more stringent
background check than the other applicants. Which of the following is true of this case?
Version 1 17
A) Abdel has no basis for a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because
the act does not provide protection against discrimination based on country of citizenship under
any circumstances.
B) Abdel has no basis for a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because
Overland Omnibus Corporation is a private employer.
C) Abdel can bring a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 because he was treated differently based on his ethnicity.
D) Abdel can bring a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 because of the bona fide occupational qualification defense.
Question Details
Topic : Middle Eastern Discrimination after September 11, 2001
Bloom's : Apply
31) Ken is a paying resident at the Twin Oaks Senior Center. He is often seen making ethnic
slurs at Chia, a Korean employee. He also refuses to be served or helped by her and others of the
same national origin as Chia. Sometimes, he even complains to the other residents that Chia is
not qualified for her job and needs to be replaced. Chia reports this to her supervisor who
immediately takes action to prevent, to stop, and to correct the harassment. Nonetheless, Chia
files a complaint of national origin discrimination. Which of the following holds true in this
scenario?
A) Twin Oaks Senior Center is not liable to Chia because the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) allows employers to discriminate in favor of U.S. citizens.
B) Twin Oaks Senior Center is not liable to Chia because it took action to stop the
harassment.
C) Twin Oaks Senior Center is liable to Chia because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 provides protection against discrimination based on country of citizenship.
D) Twin Oaks Senior Center is not liable to Chia because her case does not involve any
physical harassment.
Version 1 18
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
32) Cramer Corporation had an immediate need for a large group of workers to fulfill a
project. Although it followed its normal hiring processes, in some cases shortcuts were taken in
the interests of getting the workers on board as quickly as possible. As a result, Cramer
inadvertently hired some workers without proper documentation. Which of the following best
describes Cramer's liability in this situation.
A) There is no liability for Cramer. If the undocumented workers are discovered, the
consequences are for them and not for the company.
B) Cramer is liable for failure to obtain proper documentation showing that the workers
were eligible to work in the U.S. further, corporate officers of Cramer can be held personally
liable for failure to satisfy these requirements. Civil and criminal penalties may apply.
C) Cramer didn't know that the workers weren't eligible to work in the U.S.; therefore, it
cannot be held liable.
D) Only the person in charge of hiring at Cramer will be held accountable for bringing in
undocumented aliens.
Question Details
33) In Foley v. Connelie, the Supreme Court held that:
Version 1 19
A) only a naturalized U.S. citizen to run for president of the United States.
B) only private employers to discriminate against individuals based on their country of
origin.
C) discrimination against a non-U.S. citizen is permitted in connection with positions that
are intimately related to the process of self-government.
D) discrimination against individuals whose national origin is a country with which trade
has been outlawed by an act of Congress.
Question Details
34) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of
citizenship when:
A) citizenship discrimination has the purpose or effect of national origin discrimination.

B) the victim is a citizen of a developed country.
C) the victim is an illegal alien in the United States.
D) citizenship discrimination is the only way to protect positions that are intimately
related to the process of self-government.
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
Version 1 20
35) Aim Stores, a national retailer, does not permit its employees to wear hats, caps, scarves,
hoodies, or anything else on their heads. Aaleyah, a Muslim who wears a traditional hijab, scored
very well on interviews but ultimately was not hired by Aim. Aaleyah believes that she was not
hired because of the hijab. Which of the following best describes Aaleyah's claim, if any, against
Aim Stores?
A) Aaleyah never worked for Aim, so she has no Title VII claim against Aim.
B) Aaleyah can make a Title VII claim against Aim, and will likely win if she can
demonstrate that the hijab was the reason she wasn't hired.
C) Aaleyah can make a Title VII claim against Aim, but will likely lose because Aim has
the ability to set reasonable workplace policies.
D) Aaleyah cannot win a Title VII claim against Aim because Title VII does not provide
protection against religious discrimination.
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
36) The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) allows:
A) discrimination claims against employers with 1 to 3 employees.

B) employers from enacting a preference for illegal aliens if the job applicants are all
equally qualified.
C) discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against legal aliens under all circumstances.
D) employers to hire those not legally authorized for employment in the United States.
Version 1 21
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
37) Hassan, an undocumented worker employed by Robco Warehouse, is routinely harassed

because of his Middle Eastern ancestry. His supervisors and co-workers often refer to him as a
terrorist and call him "Taliban." He complains to the management about the harassment and after
a few days, his supervisor conducts an investigation and finds out that Hassan is an illegal alien.
This information is relayed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Which of the
following is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) most likely to conclude?
A) Robco Warehouse is not liable because the Immigration Reform and Control Act does
not prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship under any circumstances.
B) Hassan has a claim of discrimination because the Immigration Reform and Control
Act does not allow discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against illegal aliens.
C) Robco Warehouse will be liable if the company acquired information on Hassan's
status through a retaliatory investigation.
D) Hassan does not have a claim of discrimination because the Fair Labor Standards Act
does not protect undocumented workers from abuse.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
Version 1 22
38) Luis was employed as a quality officer for Slate Mountain Waterworks (SMW), a
company with only 12 employees. He had more experience and better qualifications than Brett,
who has also been working as a quality officer with SMW for the last three years. Both Luis and
Brett apply for the job of chief quality officer within SMW, and Brett is hired for the position.
Luis overhears his employer say that he would never promote a Mexican if he could give the job
to a real American. Which of the following holds true in this scenario?
A) Luis can file a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil rights
Act of 1964.
B) Luis can file a national origin discrimination claim under the Immigration Reform and
Control Act (IRCA).
C) Luis cannot file a national origin discrimination claim because he is still an employee
at Slate Mountain Waterworks.
D) Luis cannot file a national origin discrimination claim because Slate Mountain
Waterworks did not take any adverse employment action.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
39) Which of the following is a difference between the treatment of discrimination based on
national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Reform and
Control Act (IRCA)?
A) The IRCA does not allow discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against legal
aliens under any circumstances, whereas Title VII does.
B) The IRCA does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship under any
circumstances, whereas Title VII does.
C) Under IRCA, only employers with 50 or more employees are covered, whereas Title
VII covers all employers irrespective of their size.
D) Under the IRCA, innocent or negligent discrimination is a complete defense to a claim
of discrimination, whereas under Title VII, it is not.
Version 1 23
Question Details
40) Jing, a Chinese citizen who is legally permitted to work in the United States, and Sophia,
a white American woman, apply for the same job at Golden Bird Enterprises. Jing loses the job
to Sophia. In order to prevail in a national origin discrimination claim under the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Jing must prove that:
A) the job is a business necessity for her.

B) she has been living in the United States for more than 20 years.
C) the employer has hired other Chinese employees.
D) she is more qualified for the job than Sophia.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
41) The term "green card" refers to a __________.
A) Resident Alien card

B) Permanent Resident card
C) Form I-551
D) All of these
Version 1 24
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
42) The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA):
A) applies to employers with 4 or more employees.

B) requires knowledge and intent to discriminate.
C) applies regardless of the employer's knowledge or intent.
D) applies to employers with 4 or more employees and requires knowledge and intent to
discriminate.
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
43) Which of the following is not true under the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA)?
Version 1 25
A) It is illegal for employers to knowingly hire those not legally authorized for
employment in the United States.
B) It allows discrimination in favor of U.S. citizens as against legal aliens.
C) Employers will be held reasonably by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) if a document reasonable appears to be genuine but is in fact not genuine.
D) Employers must ask for assistance from the Immigration and Naturalization Service
when a document submitted by an employee or an applicant does not reasonably appear to be
genuine.
Question Details
Bloom's : Remember
44) What action must an employer take under the Immigration Reform and Control Act if an
employee gains employment with false documentation but then later obtains proper work
authorization?
A) Notify the Department of Homeland Security so that the employee can be prosecuted
for perjury.
B) Correct the relevant information on the Employment Eligibility Verification form
(Form 1-9).
C) Fire the employee for misconduct based on falsification of the employment
application.
D) Notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that the employee can be
deported.
Version 1 26
Question Details
ESSAY. Write your answer in the space provided or on a separate sheet of paper.
45) Describe what must be shown in order to make a successful Title VII claim of national
origin discrimination.
Question Details
Gradable : manual
46) Paku is an American of Indonesian ancestry who wants to work for Integrity Packers and
Movers (IPM). Paku is well built and is trained in mixed martial arts. However, when he applies
for a job at IPM, he is told that he is too short because all employees who work for the firm must
be at least five feet seven inches tall. Paku, like most other individuals of the same ancestry, does
not meet the height requirement. IPM is a family business run by Frank and his son Randy and
employs a maximum of eight employees. Discuss whether Paku can bring a case under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or another law. What does Paku have to prove to succeed?
Version 1 27
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
Gradable : manual
47) Kevin, the owner and manager of a large warehouse, speaks only English. He requires
that all his employees speak English to ensure that communication related to work is clear and
effective. A number of non-English-speaking workers complain about the policy on the grounds
that they can converse in their native languages and still get the job done. If these non-English-
speaking employees bring a claim of national origin discrimination on the basis of this policy,
what is Kevin's best defense? Explain.
Question Details
Bloom's : Apply
Gradable : manual
48) Rodrigo owns a small business, XYZ Heating and Cooling. Although XYZ is a small
business, there can be a lot of tension in the workplace since most of the employees have very
different backgrounds. Recently several employees have complained about harassment in the
workplace based on their national origin. Rodrigo wants to avoid any liability, and has asked you
to explain whether this kind of behavior can lead to legal difficulties for him. Briefly describe
when harassment based on national origin may become problematic.
Version 1 28
Question Details
Gradable : manual
49) Distinguish between national origin and citizenship.
Question Details
Gradable : manual
Version 1 29
Answer Key
Test name: Ch07
1) FALSE
Title VII's 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, non-U.S. citizens who are
legally residing in and permitted to work in the United States are often
restricted from access to certain government or other positions by
statute.
2) TRUE
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.
3) FALSE
Version 1 30
Federal agencies or employers who enter into contracts with a
government agency are required by theGuidelines on Discrimination
Because of Religion or National Origin to ensure that individuals are
hired and retained without regard to their religion or national origin.
These guidelines impose on the federal contractor an affirmative
obligation to prevent discrimination. The provisions include the
following ethnic groups: Eastern, Middle, and Southern European
ancestry, including Jews, Catholics, Italians, Greeks, and Slavs.
However, Blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, Asians, and Native
Americans are specifically excluded from the guidelines' coverage
because of their protection elsewhere in Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Rules.
4) FALSE
In considering employer liability, the court will look to whether the
conduct was physically threatening or intimidating, its severity,
pervasiveness throughout the working environment, whether a
reasonable person would find the conduct offensive and/or hostile, and
how the employer responded.
5) FALSE
In King v. Township of East Lampeter, the plaintiffs sought section 1981
protection on the basis of their "Amish ethnic culture." The court denied
the plaintiffs protection on this basis, distinguishing a New York case
that found Orthodox Jews were indeed protected under section 1981.
The court inKing found that Jews are a distinct race for civil rights
purposes but did not find the Amish to be a similarly distinct racial
group and, without evidence that they have an independent, separate
ethnic identity beyond religious observance, they were not protected
under section 1981.
6) FALSE
Version 1 31
The Supreme Court held that a job applicant seeking to prove a Title VII
disparate treatment claim need only show that the need for a religious
accommodation was a motivating factor in the prospective employer's
adverse decision. Employers also need to be sensitive to possible
instances of ethnic harassment, especially that which may unfairly relate
to security concerns. Finally, employers may not require individuals of
one ethnic background to undergo more significant security checks or
other preemployment requirements unless all applicants for that position
are required to do so.
7) D
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."
8) C
The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) is charged with combating civil
rights violations against Arab, Sikh, and South-Asian Americans, as well
as those who are perceived to be members of those groups. The group is
battling these crimes and acts of discrimination by identifying cases
involving bias crimes, conducting outreach, and working with other DoJ
offices.
Version 1 32
9) B
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), in contrast to Title
VII, does prohibit employers in certain circumstances from
discriminating against employees on the basis of their citizenship or
intended citizenship. However, the IRCA makes it illegal for employers
to knowingly hire those not legally authorized for employment in the
United States. The IRCA also allows discrimination in favor of U.S.
citizens as against legal "aliens" (non-U.S. citizens legally residing in
the United States). While these individuals are guaranteed various rights
pursuant to the Constitution, the law confers certain benefits only to
those who are citizens and not to those who are legal residents but non-
U.S. citizens.
10) A
The main difference between a proof of discrimination under Title VII
and IRCA is that, in proving a case of disparate impact, Title VII does
not require proof of discriminatory intent, while IRCA requires that the
adverse action be knowingly and intentionally discriminatory. Therefore,
innocent or negligent discrimination is a complete defense to a claim of
discrimination under IRCA.
11) C
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.
12) C
Version 1 33
National origin was included in Title VII's list of protected classes to
ensure that employers did not make employment decisions based on
preconceived notions about employees' or applicants' country of origin.
Note that section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, also may apply in those circumstances
where national origin is a proxy for or equivalent to race (discussed later
in this chapter).
13) C
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.
14) B
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.
15) C
Version 1 34
Magda'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.
16) A
An employee may successfully claim discrimination on the basis of
national origin if it is shown that: 1) She or he is a member of a
protected class (i.e., articulate the employee's national origin); 2) She or
he was qualified for the position for which she or he applied or in which
she or he was employed; 3) The employer made an employment decision
against this employee or applicant; and 4) The position was filled by
someone who was not a member of the protected class.
17) B
Global Recyclers International will be liable to Jingfei 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.
18) B
Version 1 35
Upper Elm County can defend itself against Amiri'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.
19) A
Pierre 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.
20) D
One of the elements of a prima facie case for national origin
discrimination is that an employee has suffered an adverse employment
action by his or her employer's employment decision. This may include
a demotion, termination, or removal of privileges afforded to other
employees.
21) A
Version 1 36
Vincente has a claim for national origin discrimination under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if he can show that the height
requirement adversely impacts Mexican-Americans. Disparate impact
has been found, for example, with physical requirements such as
minimum height and weight. Such requirements may have a disparate
impact on certain national origin groups as a result of genetic differences
among populations and these requirements disproportionately precluded
the groups from qualifying for certain jobs.
22) D
The action is not considered disparate impact because the policy of
terminating employees after being late does not adversely impact those
of a given national origin, especially since it is enforced against all
employees. Rather, the employer's selective enforcement is an example
of disparate treatment.
23) B
HealthSmart will be liable for national origin discrimination because it
illegally segregated the employees based on their national origin,
resulting in disparate treatment. An element of the prima facie case for
national origin discrimination is that an employee has suffered an
adverse employment action by his or her employer's employment
decision. This may include a demotion, termination, or removal of
privileges afforded to other employees. The adverse effect may arise
because employees of different national origin are treated differently
(disparate treatment).
24) D
Version 1 37
Once an employee has articulated a prima facie case of discrimination
based on national origin, the burden falls to the employer to identify
either a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) or a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason (LNDR) for the adverse employment action. If
an employment action can be shown to be a business necessity, it may
be allowed.
25) B
A job requirement that an employee must be fluent in English is legal if
fluency is required to perform the work effectively. The EEOC has
pointed out that the degree of fluency required varies from job to job, so
blanket fluency requirements that apply equally to the customer service
department and to warehouse workers might not be legal. To best be
protected from possible Title VII liability, the employer must be able to
show that English fluency is required for the job and that the
requirement is necessary to maintain supervisory control of the
workplace. Perhaps it may be required of an employee who has
significant communication with clients, or it may be justified as a BFOQ
where the employee could not speak or understand English sufficiently
to perform required duties.
26) A
If an employer enforces an English-only policy in all areas of the
workplace and at all times, including break times and other free time, the
employer's policy is presumptively discriminatory according to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The 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.
27) A
Version 1 38
According to Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., when the privilege is defined by
the employer at its narrowest (as merely the ability to speak on the job),
the court cannot conclude that those employees fluent in both English
and Spanish are adversely impacted by the policy. "There is no disparate
impact" with respect to a privilege of employment "if the rule is one that
the affected employee can readily observe and nonobservance is a matter
of individual preference."
28) A
To best be protected from possible Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act of
1964) liability, an employer must be able to show that English fluency is
required for the job and that the requirement is necessary to maintain
supervisory control of the workplace. Perhaps it may be required of an
employee who has significant communication with clients, or it may be
justified as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) where the
employee could not speak or understand English sufficiently to perform
required duties.
29) B
Labuk does not have a harassment claim because these two incidents,
although offensive, do not create a hostile work environment. Claims of
national origin harassment are only actionable if the harassment was so
severe or pervasive that the employee reasonably finds the workplace to
be hostile or abusive. In considering employer liability, courts look to
whether the conduct was physically threatening or intimidating, its
severity, pervasiveness throughout the working environment, whether a
reasonable person would find the conduct offensive and/or hostile, and
how the employer responded.
30) C
Version 1 39
Abdel can bring a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he was treated differently based on
his ethnicity. Employers may not require individuals of one ethnic
background to undergo more significant security checks or other
preemployment requirements unless all applicants for that position are
required to do so.
31) B
Twin Oaks Senior Center is not liable to Chia because it took action to
stop the harassment from Ken. Employers have the responsibility to
prevent and correct any national origin harassment that may take place
within their working environment. If an employer is aware of or is made
aware of the harassment and takes reasonable steps to prevent and
correct it, the employer may likewise be relieved of any liability.
32) B
Version 1 40
A section of the IRCA was established to correct an unfair double
standard that had previously prohibited these individuals from working
in the United States but permitted employers to hire them. In other
words, originally, the unauthorized worker had committed a legal
wrong, but the employer who hired the worker had not! Among other
things, IRCA now makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to hire,
recruit, or refer for a fee any non-citizen who is not authorized to work.
"Knowingly" includes that which "may be fairly inferred through notice
of certain facts and circumstances which would lead a person . . . to
know about a certain condition." Employers are thereby denied the
"ostrich" defense where they simply ignore obvious evidence to a
violation. Employers are instead required to verify all newly hired
employees by examining documents that identify the individual and
show his or her authority to work in the United States using a Form I-9.
Further, employers, recruiters, and those who refer individuals for
employment are required to keep records pertaining to IRCA
requirements. A violation of this provision can mean personal liability
for corporate officers, so it is not a requirement to be taken lightly.
33) C
The Supreme Court held in Foley v. Connelie that discrimination against
a non-U.S. citizen is permitted in connection with positions that are
intimately related to the process of self-government. This is called the
"political function" exception for positions that are intimately related to
the process of self-government. In cases where the restricted position
satisfies this exception, discrimination against legal aliens is permitted.
34) A
Version 1 41
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 (non-citizens residing in the United
States) are often restricted from access to certain government or other
positions by statute.
35) B
Issues of concern and questions that have arisen from these cases have
centered on a few key issues. Employers may not treat workers
differently because of their religious attire, such as a Muslim hijab (head
scarf). In fact, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in favor of a
Muslim woman who was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store
in Tulsa, Oklahoma, because she wore a headscarf. This was after an
interviewer had recommended the woman for hire for a sales job.
Abercrombie's dress code prohibits salespeople from wearing caps. The
Court held that a job applicant seeking to prove a Title VII disparate
treatment claim need only show that the need for a religious
accommodation was a motivating factor in the prospective employer's
adverse decision.
36) C
Version 1 42
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. Those employers with four to 14 employees are prohibited from
discriminating on the basis of national origin; and employers with four
or more employees many not discriminate on the basis of citizenship.
37) C
Robco Warehouse will be liable without regard to Hassan's actual work
status if the company acquired information on Hassan's status through a
retaliatory investigation. Undocumented workers are particularly
vulnerable to threats to report them to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). In every case in which an employer asserts
that a worker is undocumented and the employer appears to have
acquired that information after the worker complained of discrimination,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will determine
whether the information was acquired through a retaliatory investigation.
If the investigation is retaliatory, an employer will be liable for equitable
relief as well as monetary damages without regard to the worker's actual
work status.
38) B
Version 1 43
Luis can file a national origin discrimination claim under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Employers not subject to
Title VII's (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibitions because of their
small size (less than 15 employees) may still be sufficiently large to be
covered by IRCA's anti-discrimination provisions; those employers with
four 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.
39) D
The main difference between a proof of discrimination under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA) is that, in proving a case of disparate impact, Title VII does
not require proof of discriminatory intent, while the IRCA requires that
the adverse action be knowingly and intentionally discriminatory.
Therefore, innocent or negligent discrimination is a complete defense to
a claim of discrimination under the IRCA.
40) D
In order to prevail in a national origin discrimination claim under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Jing must prove that she
is more qualified for the job than Sophia. The IRCA allows employers to
enact a preference for U.S. citizens if the applicants are all equally
qualified. Employers may not act on this preference if the foreign
national is more qualified for the position than the U.S. citizen.
41) D
Version 1 44
The term "green card" refers to a Resident Alien card, Permanent
Resident card, Alien Registration Receipt card, or Form I-551, all of
which grant permanent residence in the United States. Proof of this
status may expire. Alien cardholders must obtain new cards. Employers
should check that unexpired "green cards" used for Form I-9 appear
genuine and establish identity of the cardholder.
42) D
VII, does prohibit employers in certain circumstances from
discriminating against employees on the basis of their citizenship or
intended citizenship. However, the IRCA makes it illegal for employers
to knowingly hire those not legally authorized for employment in the
United States. The IRCA also allows discrimination in favor of U.S.
citizens as against legal "aliens" (non-US citizens legally residing in the
United States). While these individuals are guaranteed various rights
pursuant to the Constitution, the law confers certain benefits only to
those who are citizens and not to those who are legal residents but non-
US citizens. For instance, while rights pursuant to the National Labor
Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act are provided to citizens and
non-citizens, alike, some government-provided benefits are limited to
citizens. Also, the IRCA allows employers to enact a preference for U.S.
citizens, if the applicants are all equally qualified. Employers may not
act on this preference if the foreign national is more qualified for the
position than the U.S. citizen. Employers not subject to Title VII's
prohibitions because of their small size (less than 15 employees) may
still be sufficiently large to be covered by IRCA's anti-discrimination
provisions; those employers with 4 to 14 employees are prohibited from
discriminating on the basis of national origin; and employers with 4 or
more employees may not discriminate on the basis of citizenship.
Version 1 45
43) C
If a document submitted by an employee or an applicant does not
reasonably appear to be genuine, an employer may ask for assistance
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). If a document
that reasonably appears to be genuine is in fact not genuine, an employer
will not be held responsible by the INS.
44) B
Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (ICRA), if an employee
gains employment with false documentation but then later presents
proper work authorization, his or her employer should correct the
relevant information on the Employment Eligibility Verification form
(Form I-9). Personnel policies regarding provision of false information
to an employer may apply. Employers do not have to terminate an
employee who presents subsequent work authorization.
Version 1 46
45)The national origin discrimination protection offered by Title VII
is similar to that of gender or race and is used somewhat synonymously
with ethnicity, though they are distinguishable. That is, it is an unlawful
employment practice for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify
employees in any way that would deprive them of employment
opportunities because of national origin. An employer may not group its
employees on the basis of national origin, make employment decisions
on that basis, or implement policies or programs that, though they appear
not to be based on an employee's or applicant's country of origin,
actually affect those of one national origin differently than those of a
different group. An employee may successfully claim discrimination on
the basis of national origin if it is shown that
1. She or he is a member of a protected class (i.e., articulate the
employee's national origin).
2. She or he was qualified for the position for which she or he applied or
in which she or he was employed.
3. The employer made an employment decision against this employee
or applicant.
4. The position was filled by someone who was not a member of the
protected class.
46) Paku cannot bring a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 because Integrity Packers and Movers employs fewer than 15
employees. However, Paku may be able to bring a case under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) because it prohibits
discrimination based on national origin and applies to employers with 4
to 14 employees. Paku would need to show that he applied for the job
and was qualified, and that the height requirement has a disparate impact
on Indonesians and is not related to the ability to do the job. However, in
order to prevail under the IRCA, unlike Title VII, Paku has to show that
his employer had a discriminatory intent.
Version 1 47
47)Kevin's best defense is to demonstrate that the English-only policy is
a business necessity. A job requirement that an employee must be fluent
in English is legal if fluency is required to perform the work effectively.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has pointed
out that the degree of fluency required varies from job to job, so blanket
fluency requirements that apply equally to the customer service
department and to warehouse workers might not be legal. To best be
protected from possible Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
liability, the employer must be able to show that English fluency is
required for the job and that the requirement is necessary to maintain
supervisory control of the workplace. Perhaps it may be required of an
employee who has significant communication with clients, or it may be
justified as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) where the
employee could not speak or understand English sufficiently to perform
required duties.
Such policies may be based in well-intentioned employer efforts aimed
at decreasing workplace tension where multiple languages have
segregated a workplace, improving employees' English, or promoting a
safe and efficient workplace.
48) Claims of national origin harassment are only actionable if the
harassment was so severe or pervasive that an employee reasonably
finds the workplace to be hostile or abusive. Common concerns include
ethnic slurs, workplace graffiti, or other offenses based on traits such as
an employee's birthplace, culture, accent, or skin color. In considering
employer liability, the court will look to whether the conduct was
physically threatening or intimidating, its severity, pervasiveness
throughout the working environment, whether a reasonable person
would find the conduct offensive and/or hostile, and how the employer
responded.
Version 1 48
Test Bank for Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition, Dawn Bennett-Alexander Laura Hartma
49)The term "national origin" refers to the country of origin of an

individual or his or her ancestors or the physical, cultural, or linguistic
characteristics of an origin group. 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.
"Citizenship" and "national origin" are not synonymous. Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees who are not U.S. citizens
from employment discrimination based on the categories of the act, but
it does not protect them from discrimination based on their status as
aliens, rather than as U.S. citizens.
Title VII's 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.
Version 1 49
Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

Test Bank For Employment Law For Business 10th Edition Dawn Bennett Alexander Laura Hartman

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

Test Bank For Employment Law For Business 10th Edition Dawn Bennett Alexander Laura Hartman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Test Bank for Employment Law for Business, 10th Edition, Dawn Bennett-Alexander Laura Hartma

Test Bank for Employment Law for Business, 10th

To download the complete and accurate content document, go to:

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

A) followed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) guidelines and

A) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

9) The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA):

A) criminal penalties only

A) To ensure that illegal immigrants are given a fair chance at employment.

A) Nesbitt's continued employment of Francois cannot constitute a violation of the

16) Which of the following must an employee demonstrate to successfully claim

A) The employer made an employment decision against the applicant.

17) Jingfei, an employee of Chinese origin, works as a sales representative at Global

20) An adverse employment action in a national origin discrimination cases includes:

A) identify a bona fide occupational qualification.

25) An employer considering an "English-only" job requirement should be aware that:

A) employer's policy is presumptively discriminatory according to the Equal

A) is necessary to maintain supervisory control of the workplace.

33) In Foley v. Connelie, the Supreme Court held that:

A) citizenship discrimination has the purpose or effect of national origin discrimination.

36) The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) allows:

A) discrimination claims against employers with 1 to 3 employees.

37) Hassan, an undocumented worker employed by Robco Warehouse, is routinely harassed

A) the job is a business necessity for her.

41) The term "green card" refers to a __________.

A) Resident Alien card

42) The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA):

A) applies to employers with 4 or more employees.

49) Distinguish between national origin and citizenship.

Test name: Ch07

49)The term "national origin" refers to the country of origin of an

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

You might also like