Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Scenario Assignment 1

 Due Feb 3 at 11:59pm


 Points 30
 Questions 6
 Available until Feb 6 at 11:59pm
 Time Limit None

This quiz was locked Feb 6 at 11:59pm.


Attempt History
Attempt Time Score
LATEST Attempt 1 138 minutes 26 out of 30
Correct answers are hidden.
Score for this quiz: 26 out of 30
Submitted Jan 26 at 10:40pm
This attempt took 138 minutes.

Move To... This element is a more accessible alternative to drag & drop reordering. Press Enter
or Space to move this question.
Question 1
4 / 5 pts

(Chapter 1) Read the Employment Scenario introduction at the bottom of page


24 and the second Employment Scenario section at the top of page 25, which
concerns the following seven individuals: Jack Walker, Grant Worthington, Phil
Costello, Nancy Cooke, Martha Winslow, Stephanie Russo, and Lucy
Johnson. Based on the information provided, which of these people are
employees and which are independent contractors? To receive full credit: List
each individual, whether they should be an employee/contractor, and your
reasoning.

Your Answer:

Individuals 1-3: Jack Walker, Grant Worthington, and Phil Costello - salesmen

They are employees because in the economic realities test, the individuals are
employees because the type of relationship is indicative of employment status
because the worker has no power to employee others without the employer's
authorization." Another reason they are employees because the company exerts
behavioral control which includes "instructing, training, setting work hours, and
designating dress codes; where, when, and how the work is to be done; and
restricting the worker from being employed by others."

Individual 4: Nancy Cooke - administrative assistant

She is an employee because the company exerts behavioral control by setting


work hours for the individual.

Individual 5: Martha Winslow - seamstress

She is an independent contractor because the company does not exert full
behavioral control of "when, where, and how the work is performed and the
method(s) used to complete the task." Another reason Martha is an independent
contractor is because she is paid by the job and an employee is paid a wage
or salary.

Individual 6: Stephanie Russo - web page design specialist

She is an employee because the company exerts behavioral control by including


training in her employment. Another reason she is an employee is because the
type of relationship is indicative of employment status because the relationship is
continuous as a consultant paid hourly.

Individual 7: Lucy Johnson - janitor

She is an independent contractor because the company does not exert


behavioral control by allowing Lucy to set her own schedule. Another reason is
that Lucy is paid by the job, which indicates that she is an independent
contractor.

Stephanie is a contractor

Move To... This element is a more accessible alternative to drag & drop reordering. Press Enter
or Space to move this question.
Question 2
5 / 5 pts
(Chapter 2) Read the first full Employment Scenario printed on page 59, in which
Tom Long and Mark Short describe interview experiences with Martha, Lucy,
Bruce and Mildred. Tom and Mark are seeking affirmation for their business
conduct. What advice should be given? (In other words, based on the
information in the chapter, did L&S handle each interview situation appropriately
and why/why not?). List each interview by name, whether the
interview/questions were legal and, if not, what type of
discrimination applies to each situation to receive full credit for this
question. Finally, how should Tom and Mark judge candidates?
Your Answer:

I would give Tom and Mark the advice to be careful when asking questions in an
interview regarding a protected class. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act make
it illegal to base hiring decisions on qualities that are considered part of a
protected class. If an employer violates any of these laws, the individual can sue.

Tom and Mark should judge candidates based on their former work ethic, their
credentials, former work history, and the candidates ability to perform the tasks
necessary for the job.

Martha Winslow's question regarding her children was illegal because it was
parental status discrimination.

Lucy Jimenez's question regarding what country she is from was illegal because it
was discrimination based on national origin.

Bruce Wood's rejection based on whether he might be gay is legal because it is


not considered discrimination to reject a candidate based on sexual orientation.

Mildred Peterson's rejection based on her gender was illegal because it was
discrimination based on sex.

Move To... This element is a more accessible alternative to drag & drop reordering. Press Enter
or Space to move this question.
Question 3
5 / 5 pts
(chapter 3) Employment Scenario 1 (p 88-89). “L&S wants to require those applicants selected for
employment as salespeople to take written aptitude and psychological tests. Tom and Mark ask
Susan North, Esq., for her perspective. How should she advise them?”
MORE SPECIFICALLY, why should the aptitude and psychological tests not be used; and
what should they do instead?

Your Answer:

The aptitude test should not used because an aptitude test measures a person's
ability in a particular skill or field of knowledge. The problem they are
experiencing cannot be tested prior to employment. L&S should instead provide
training to its salespeople regarding the clothing lines as a new employment
orientation and as an annual training for employees to be aware of the current
and new clothing lines.

The psychological test should not be used because it is a measure of behavior of


an individual. L&S should instead require applicants to take a personality test to
determine if the individual has the qualities of a successful salesperson.

Move To... This element is a more accessible alternative to drag & drop reordering. Press Enter
or Space to move this question.
Question 4
5 / 5 pts
(Chapter 4) Read the HR Dilemma #1 at the top of page 117. Does Webb have any recourse
against Professor Morrison? (In other words, and in the context of this course and chapter,
can she sue him and if so, for what?)

Your Answer:

Alyssa Webb can sue Professor Morrison for slander and malice.

Webb can sue Morrison for slander because Morrison verbally told the University
a false statement that caused hard to a third person's reputation. Webb can also
sue for malice because Morrison made a false statement that Webb plagiarized
on a few essays with the intent to injure Webb.

Move To... This element is a more accessible alternative to drag & drop reordering. Press Enter
or Space to move this question.
Question 5
5 / 5 pts
(Chapter 5) Read the HR Dilemma #2 at the bottom of page 141 regarding High Tech, Inc. Do the
employees have any recourse? Be sure to indicate which law in the chapter applies to this
situation.

Your Answer:
The employees have recourse in this situation. Since High Tech, Inc., has 200
employees and the company only provided 2 weeks notice of the plant
shutdown, they have violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
("WARN") Act of 1988.

This act requires employers having 100 or more employees to give 60 days notice
of a substantial layoff or the closing of a plant or office. This gives employees the
opportunity to retrain or seek other work. It also gives state agencies that assist
the unemployed time to prepare.

Move To... This element is a more accessible alternative to drag & drop reordering. Press Enter
or Space to move this question.
Question 6
2 / 5 pts
(Chapter 6) Read the Human Resource Dilemma #3, page 160. How would you advise Aloe? (In
other words, is this legal? Explain.)

Your Answer:

A mandatory arbitration agreement is legal based on the Federal Arbitration Act.


However, it is voluntary for an individual to sign it based on the Arbitration
Fairness Act of 2009. I would advise Aloe not to fire Alyssa Jorgenson because
she could potentially sue for sexual and racial discrimination if she is fired.

Quiz Score: 26 out of 30