This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 267 C HAPTER 34 E MPLOYMENT D ISCRIMINATION A NSWERS TO C RITICAL A NALYSIS Q UESTIONS IN THE F EATURE EMERGING TRENDSFOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS QUESTION 1 (PAGE 707) Suppose that an employee writes a message to like-minded persons concerning religious beliefs or political views. Can the employee be fired in that situation? Who decides what is acceptable Internet activity when there is no written policy? The employee would probably not be fired for sending such a message, unless the employer has an Internet or office network policy that such an activity somehow violates. Of course, the message may be offensive or illegal, and that may be a ground for discharge, particularly if others are affected. The employer decides what is acceptable Internet activity, either by establishing a written policy or by determining workplace propriety on a case-by-case basis. EMERGING TRENDSFOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS QUESTION 2 (PAGE 707) How might an employee avoid the possibility that his or her employer will discover objectionable items on the employees computer? The obvious answer is that the employee should avoid putting objectionable items on the computer in the first place. To frustrate others efforts to surreptitiously accomplish the same goal, employees might use passwords, firewalls, and protective software, and monitor the computers themselves. A NSWERS TO Q UESTIONS AT THE E NDS OF THE C ASES CASE 34.1(PAGE 698) WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that the lower court had determined that the Moonlights drivers and owners qualified as employees for Title VII purposes. How might the course of this case have been changed? The lower court would have most likely upheld its judgment. This issue then would not have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, at least not by Arbaugh. Y & H might have appealed the decision on a different ground, however. 268 UNIT SEVEN: AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT THE GLOBAL DIMENSION Equal employment opportunity is not a universal policy, and some countries restrict the role of women in employment. Should a U.S. firm doing business is those countries respect this position? Discuss. In some instances, failing to respect the restrictive nations political, social, religious, and cultural traditions could undercut a U.S. Firms ability to do business in those countries. In other circumstances, supporting different policies might effect important changes to the status of women and foster increased economic ties. In most cases, deciding which course to pursue can be a subjective determination, based in part on ethical guidelines. CASE 34.2QUESTIONS (PAGE 704) 1A. Why did the Court evaluate the language of Title VIIs anti- discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions in this case? The Court chose to consider these provisions of Title VII because it disagreed with the determination of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that Title VIIs anti-retaliation ban is limited to acts that adversely affect the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment. Thelimited to acts that adversely affect the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment....
View Full Document
- Fall '10
- Business Law