Explain the employment at will doctrine and be able to identify exceptions to the doctrine.

· Explain the employment at will doctrine and be able to identify exceptions to the doctrine.

· Identify laws that regulate the wages, health benefits, working hours and safety of employees, both children and adults.

· Recognize laws established by Congress to protect employees right to join labor unions and participate in collective bargaining with their employers.

· Explain privacy rights established for employees in the areas of electronic communication and monitoring.

· Identify various forms of employment discrimination prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

· Explain protections provided against Age Discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

· Understand the concept of disability and be able to cite examples of reasonable accommodations

· Identify defenses available to defendants in employment discrimination actions.

· Explain what affirmative action programs are, and demonstrate an understanding of the analysis of affirmative actions programs in the Federal courts.

Assignment

Read Chapters 31-33 in your text.
Review Powerpoints for Chapters 31 (Links to an external site.) , 32 (Links to an external site.) & 33 (Links to an external site.) posted.
Take the quizzes for Chapter 31 , Chapter 32 & Chapter 33 .
Review the short video at the following link –
YouTube Video – Employment Discrimination (Links to an external site.)
. If you’re feeling especially daring and or have an additional hour to spare (not required), have a look at
YouTube Video – Employment Discrimination 2 (Links to an external site.)
.
If your name is listed here, post an internet link to the Module 8 Topic on the message board that explains the concept/term assigned to you as it relates to the text materials

If your last name begins with the letters ‘A’ through ‘M,’ complete problems 1, 3 & 5
If your last name begins with the letters ‘N’ through ‘Z,’ complete problems 2, 4 & 6
1. Workers’ Compensation Ronald Wayne Smith was employed by Modesto High School as a temporary math instructor. In addition, he coached the girls’ base-ball and basketball teams. The contract under which he was employed stated that he “ may be required to devote a reasonable amount of time to other duties” in addition to instructional duties. The teachers in the school system were evaluated once a year regarding both instructional duties and non- instructional duties, including “ sponsorship or the supervision of out- of- classroom student activities.” The high school’s math club holds an annual end- of-year outing. A picnic was scheduled to be held at the Modesto Reservoir. The students invited their math teachers, including Smith, to attend. The food was paid for by math club members’ dues. Smith attended the picnic with his wife and three children. One of the students brought along a windsurfer. Smith watched the students as they used it before and after the picnic. When Smith tried it himself, he fell and was seriously injured. He died shortly thereafter. Mrs. Smith filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, to which the employer objected. Are Smith’s activities at the time of the accident employment related? Smith v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, 191 Cal. App. 3d 127, 236 Cal. Rptr. 248, Web 1987 Cal. App. Lexis 1587 ( Court of Appeal of California)
2. Workers’ Compensation Immar Medrano was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. ( MEC), in Marshall, Missouri. Medrano attended an electrician apprenticeship night class at a community college in Sedalia, Missouri. MEC paid Medrano’s tuition and book fees. Attendance at the course required Medrano to drive 70 miles round-trip. One night, when Medrano was driving home from the class, a drunk driver crossed the centerline of U. S. Highway 65 and collided head- on with Medrano’s automobile. Medrano died in the accident. His wife and two children filed a workers’ compensation claim for death benefits against MEC. Are Medrano’s actions at the time of the automobile accident within the course and scope of his employment, thus entitling him to workers’ compensation benefits? Medrano v. Marshall Electrical Contracting Inc., 173 S. W. 3d 333, Web 2005 Mo. App. Lexis 1088 ( Court of Appeals of Missouri)
3. Unfair Labor Practice The Teamsters Union ( Teamsters) began a campaign to organize the employees at a Sinclair Company ( Sinclair) plant. When the president of Sinclair learned of the Teamsters’ drive, he talked with all of his employees and emphasized the results of a long strike thirteen years earlier that he claimed “ almost put our company out of business,” and he expressed worry that the employees were forgetting the “ lessons of the past.” He emphasized that Sinclair was on “ thin ice” financially, that the Teamsters’ “ only weapon is to strike,” and that a strike “ could lead to the closing of the plant” because Sinclair had manufacturing facilities elsewhere. He also noted that because of the employees’ ages and the limited usefulness of their skills, they might not be able to find reemployment if they lost their jobs. Finally, he sent literature to the employees stating that “ the Teamsters Union is a strike happy outfit” and that they were under “ hoodlum control,” and included a cartoon showing the preparation of a grave for Sinclair and other headstones containing the names of other plants allegedly victimized by unions. The Teamsters lost the election 7 to 6 and then filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. Has Sinclair violated labor law? Who wins? N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U. S. 575, 89 S. Ct. 1918, 23 L. Ed. 2d 547, Web 1969 U. S. Lexis 3172 ( Supreme Court of the United States)
4. Unfair Labor Practice The Frouge Corporation ( Frouge) was the general contractor on a housing project in Philadelphia. The carpenter employees of Frouge were represented by the Carpenters’ International Union ( Union). Traditional jobs of carpenters included taking blank wooden doors and mortising them for doorknobs, routing them for hinges, and beveling them to fit between the doorjambs. Union had entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Frouge that pro-vided that no member of Union would handle any doors that had been fitted prior to being furnished to the job site. The housing project called for 3,600 doors. Frouge contracted for the purchase of premachined doors that were already mortised, routed, and beveled. When Union ordered its members not to hang the prefabricated doors, the National Woodwork Manufacturers Association filed an unfair labor practice charge against Union with the NLRB. Is Union’s refusal to hang pre-fabricated doors lawful? National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. N. L. R. B., 386 U. S. 612, 87 S. Ct. 1250, Web 1967 U. S. Lexis 2858 ( Supreme Court of the United States)
5. Sexual Harassment Teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems Incorporated ( Forklift), an equipment rental company, for two and one- half years. Charles Hardy was Forklift’s president. Throughout Harris’s time at Forklift, Hardy often insulted her because of her sex and made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos. Hardy told Harris on several occasions, in the presence of other employees, “ You’re a woman, what do you know?” and “ We need a man as the rental manager”; at least once, he told her she was “ a dumb ass woman.” Again in front of others, he suggested that the two of them “ go to the Holiday Inn to negotiate Harris’s raise.” He made sexual innuendos about Harris’s and other women’s clothing. Six weeks before Harris quit her job, Harris complained to Hardy about his conduct. Hardy said he was surprised that Harris was offended, claimed he was only joking, and apologized. He also promised he would stop, and based on this assurance, Harris stayed on the job. But two weeks later, Hardy began anew. While Harris was arranging a deal with one of Forklift’s customers, he asked her, again in front of other employees, “ What did you do, promise the guy some sex Saturday night?” One month later, Harris collected her paycheck and quit. Harris then sued Forklift, claiming that Hardy’s con-duct was sexual harassment that created a hostile work environment for her because of her gender. Who wins? Harris v. Forklift Systems Incorporated, 510 U. S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed. 2d 295, Web 1993 U. S. Lexis 7155 ( Supreme Court of the United States)
6. Hostile Work Environment The Pennsylvania State Police ( PSP) hired Nancy Drew Suders as a police communications operator for the McConnellsburg barracks. Suders’s supervisors were Sergeant Eric D. Easton, station commander at the McConnellsburg barracks, Patrol Corporal William D. Baker, and Corporal Eric B. Prendergast. Those three supervisors subjected Suders to a continuous barrage of sexual harassment that ceased only when she resigned from the force. Easton would bring up the subject of people having sex with animals each time Suders entered his office. He told Prendergast, in front of Suders, that young girls should be given instruction in how to gratify men with oral sex. Easton also would sit down near Suders, wearing Spandex shorts, and spread his legs apart. Baker repeatedly made obscene gestures in Suders’s presence and shouted out vulgar comments inviting sex. Baker made these gestures as many as five to ten times per night throughout Suders’s employment at the barracks. Further, Baker would rub his rear end in front of her and remark “ I have a nice ass, don’t I?” Five months after being hired, Suders contacted Virginia Smith- Elliot, PSP’s equal opportunity officer, and stated that she was being harassed at work and was afraid. Smith- Elliot’s response appeared to Suders to be insensitive and unhelpful. Two days later, Suders re-signed from the force. Suders sued PSP, alleging that she had been subject to sexual harassment and constructively discharged and forced to resign. Can an employer be held liable when the sexual harassment conduct of its employees is so severe that the victim of the harassment resigns? Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U. S. 129, 124 S. Ct. 2342, 159 L. Ed. 2d 204, Web 2004 U. S. Lexis 4176 ( Supreme Court of the United States)

Last Completed Projects