Please respond to each question set in the order in which it appears below, inserting the number of the question set as a heading or in the first line of the responses to that set.
QUESTION SET ONE
When Nancy, a vice president of Marino Wealth Management, Inc., recently interviewed Lydia for an investment manager position, she was put off by Lydias appearance. Marinos dress code for investment managers is professional business attire. Contemplating the rather flashy silk scarf wrapped around Lydias head, Nancy wondered if Lydia was having a bad hair day or was just trying to be fashion forward. She decided against asking about the attire because, in her view, if Lydia didnt have enough sense to dress appropriately for her interview, things could only go downhill from there, and Nancy didnt want to end up debating clothing options with a new hire. So, although Lydia appeared to be otherwise well qualified for the position, Nancy checked the reject box on the interview form and moved on to the next candidate. Unbeknownst to Nancy, Lydia was wearing the scarf because her religion requires it. Had Nancy realized that, she would have been far more circumspect in her approach.
In light of the course reading (which, as always, includes the Canvas Lesson Commentary), analyze Lydias potential Title VII claim against Marino. Be sure to
Identify and describe any and all Title VII claims that Lydia could potentially have, identify the elements of each claim, and explain to what extent she could or could not establish each element of each claim.
Identify, describe and analyze any defenses that Marino could assert in response to each claim and explain to what extent it could establish the defense.
If additional information would be helpful to your analysis of claims and defenses, explain how and why it would impact your analysis.
QUESTION SET TWO
Repacordy, Inc. manufactures industrial containers. The heavy machinery on the plant floor is so dangerous that it could maim or even kill inattentive or distracted employees. Robert has been employed by Repacordy for the past 2 years as a working supervisor, spending about 40% of his time operating the heavy machinery and the rest of his time closely supervising the hourly employees who work on that equipment. About a year before he was hired, Robert developed a severe degenerative disc disease that made it almost impossible for him to engage in even the most mundane of daily activities. After consultation with this doctor, he was prescribed morphine, which gave him significant relief. Although the literature that accompanies his medication states that he should not drive or operate machinery while under its influence, Robert did not disclose his condition or medication to Repacordy when he was hired. Nor has he complied with Repacordy employee handbooks requirement that employees notify the company of any medication that could affect their ability to safely do their work.
Although the morphine had been working pretty well, last month the pain started breaking through to the point that even Robert realized that he was too distracted to work safely. Robert decided to ask one of the hourly employees, Rick, for some Vicodin, which Robert knew he was taking. Rick reluctantly agreed. But, the following day, worried about the situation and regretting his decision, Rick alerted the plant manager, Ted, to what was going on.
Ted immediately removed Robert from the plant floor. That afternoon Human Resources sent Robert for a drug test, which confirmed the presence of Vicodin and morphine in his system. When HR confronted Robert about taking medication that had not been prescribed for him and failing to disclose medication that could interfere with this work, Robert apologized, asked to be released from the handbook requirements, and tried to assure HR that he knew what he was doing. Unconvinced, HR suspended Robert without pay and asked him to provide information from his doctor about Roberts ability to safely do his job.
Although Robert initially agreed to have his doctor provide the information, the next day he changed his mind and told HR it would just be a waste of time. HR urged Robert to bring his doctor into the conversation, but Robert declined. Ted is asking that Robert be discharged for violating the terms of the handbook.
In light of what we learned in Lessons 05 and 07, please:
Identify and describe any and all claims that Robert could potentially have against Repacordy, identify the elements of each claim, and explain to what extent he could or could ot establish each element of each claim.
Identify, describe and analyze any defenses the Repacordy could assert in response to each claim and explain to what extent it could establish the defense.
If additional information would be helpful to your analysis of claims and defenses, explain how and why it would impact your analysis.
What course of action should Repacordy take with respect to Robert?
QUESTION SET THREE
Repacordy, Inc. automatically grants 6 weeks of paid leave to hourly plant pregnant employees who have a vaginal delivery and 12 weeks of paid leave to those who have a C-section. Valerie, who works with heavy equipment on the plant floor, had a C-section in July and intended to return at the conclusion of her 12-week leave. But during her 11th week off, she had a severe flare up related to a chronic underlying medical condition. While that condition is normally controlled with meds, when it flares up, Valerie develops balance and coordination issues that make it impossible for her to bend, twist, or lift, activities that are an essential part of her job. Valerie has submitted a request for another 4 weeks of leave, accompanied by a note from her doctor stating that Valerie will be unable to resume her duties for another 4 weeks and expressing confidence that she will be able to return to work at the end of that additional leave. Ted wants HR to reject the request because this same situation came up two years ago, when Valerie missed 12 weeks of work during the companys busiest time.
Analyze the risks associated with terminating Valerie. Your analysis should include responses to the following:
If you believe that Valerie may have a claim if she is discharged, identify each claim and the law upon which it could be based, identify the elements of each claim, and explain to what extent she could establish each element of each claim.
If you believe that Valerie would not have a claim, explain your analysis in detail.
If additional information would be helpful to your analysis, explain how and why it would impact your analysis.
What course of action should Repacordy take with respect to Valerie?
