Test Questions Practice Flashcards
To claim a prima facie case for national origin discrimination, an employee needs to prove that:
(A)his or her employer’s employment decision caused an adverse employment action to him or her.
(B)his or her position was filled by someone who is a member of the same protected class that he or she belongs to.
(C)his or her employer’s employment decision or action was a business necessity.
(D)his or her employer’s job requirements exceed his or her qualifications.
A
Chuntao, an employee of Chinese origin, works as a sales representative at Arcade Recyclers International. Her supervisor, Jim, persistently refers to her as “Charlene” instead of “Chuntao.” Although she objects and asks to be called by her rightful name, Jim continues to call her “Charlene” 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 Arcade’s clientele. Chuntao brings a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which of the following holds true in this case?
(A)Arcade Recyclers International will not be liable to Chuntao because the use of “Charlene” is neither a racial epithet nor a description of her physical ethnic traits.
(B)Arcade Recyclers International will be liable to Chuntao because ethnic characteristics go beyond skin color and other physical traits and can include names.
(C)Arcade Recyclers International will not be liable to Chuntao because Jim did not intend his use of “Charlene” to be derogatory of her national origin.
(D)Arcade Recyclers International will be liable to Chuntao because Title VII provides protection against discrimination based on a victim’s country of citizenship.
B
Jin, 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. However, the rule has only been enforced against Asian workers while employees of other national origins have been retained with only a warning. In this scenario, Jin:
(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.
B
Tang Li is employed by Open Box Corporation as a computer analyst. Once, in a fit of anger, Bob, his supervisor, told him that foreigners should stop seeking jobs in the United States if they cannot perform. Another time, Bob yelled at Tang, calling him an idiot. Which of the following holds true in this case?
(A)Tang 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)Tang does not have a harassment claim based on national origin because these two incidents, although offensive, do not create a hostile work environment.
(C)Tang 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)Tang 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.
B
Margaret 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, Margaret 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 Margaret decides to file a discrimination claim based on national origin?
(A)Margaret 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 Margaret’s attire overlaps with her religion.
(C)Margaret’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)Margaret 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.
C
