Question 1

Matching
-An employer adopts an otherwise discriminatory employment practice if it is reasonably neces-
sary to the normal operations of that particular business.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case G

Question 2

Matching
-An order requiring violators of antidiscrimination laws to cease their discriminatory conduct and refrain from committing future violations.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case E

Question 3

An employer can adopt an otherwise discriminatory employment practice if it is reasonably nec-
essary to the normal operations of that particular business.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False  True

Question 4

The defendant in a Title VII case must carry the initial burden in establishing a prima facie case.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 5

The plaintiff who loses his or her job because of employment discrimination has a duty to miti-
gate damages by using reasonable diligence to seek other employment substantially equivalent
to his or her previous position.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 6

Matching
-A situation in which an employer offers both a legitimate and an illegitimate reason for its
adverse employment action.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case

Question 7

Matching
-An amount of damages equal to lost wages and benefits.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case

Question 8

Matching
-Ill will, intentionally harming someone, or having no moral or legal justification for harming someone.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case

Question 9

Systemic disparate impact is also known as the adverse impact theory.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 10

Matching
-The figure derived from multiplying the number of hours that an attorney reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case

Question 11

Matching
-Employment practices that are neutral on their face in the treatment of different groups, but which
fall more heavily on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case

Question 12

Matching
-An employee deliberately treated the employee bringing a claim of intentional discrimination
differently from other employees because of his or her membership in a protected class.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case

Question 13

The two methods that may be utilized to prove a Title VII case are disparate treatment or dis- parate impact.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 14

An employee's inability to "fit in" with other employees is not a legitimate nondiscriminatory
reason that an employer may assert to rebut a prima facie case.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 15

One obvious rebuttal of a plaintiff's prima facie case claim that he or she was qualified for the
position is the introduction of evidence that the plaintiff was in fact not qualified.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 16

Evidence that the person hired or promoted is of the same minority or sex as that of the com-
plainant is an absolute defense in the defendant's rebuttal in supporting a nondiscriminatory jus-
tification for its employment action.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 17

Matching
-Intentional discrimination based on a person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or
disability.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case

Question 18

An employer must act with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected right
of an aggrieved individual, and egregious intentional discrimination must be found before puni-
tive damages are available.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 19

Matching
-Losses for the intangible injuries of emotional harm, such as emotional pain, suffering, inconve- nience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, and injury to character and reputation.

Accepted Answer

A) liquidated damages 
B) malice 
C) disparate treatment 
D) nonpecuniary damages 
E) injunction
F)individual disparate treatment
G)BFOQ
H)systemic disparate impact
I)Lodestar
J)mixed motives case

Question 20

The theory of individual disparate treatment seeks to determine whether the employer deliber- ately treated the employee bringing a claim of intentional discrimination differently from other employees because of his or her membership in a protected class.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Exam 7: Overview of Discrimination in Employment Law

Matching -An employer adopts an otherwise discriminatory employment practice if it is reasonably neces- sary to the normal operations of that particular business.

Matching -An order requiring violators of antidiscrimination laws to cease their discriminatory conduct and refrain from committing future violations.

An employer can adopt an otherwise discriminatory employment practice if it is reasonably nec- essary to the normal operations of that particular business.

The defendant in a Title VII case must carry the initial burden in establishing a prima facie case.

The plaintiff who loses his or her job because of employment discrimination has a duty to miti- gate damages by using reasonable diligence to seek other employment substantially equivalent to his or her previous position.

Matching -A situation in which an employer offers both a legitimate and an illegitimate reason for its adverse employment action.

Matching -An amount of damages equal to lost wages and benefits.

Matching -Ill will, intentionally harming someone, or having no moral or legal justification for harming someone.

Systemic disparate impact is also known as the adverse impact theory.

Matching -The figure derived from multiplying the number of hours that an attorney reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate.

Matching -Employment practices that are neutral on their face in the treatment of different groups, but which fall more heavily on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.

Matching -An employee deliberately treated the employee bringing a claim of intentional discrimination differently from other employees because of his or her membership in a protected class.

The two methods that may be utilized to prove a Title VII case are disparate treatment or dis- parate impact.

An employee's inability to "fit in" with other employees is not a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that an employer may assert to rebut a prima facie case.

One obvious rebuttal of a plaintiff's prima facie case claim that he or she was qualified for the position is the introduction of evidence that the plaintiff was in fact not qualified.

Evidence that the person hired or promoted is of the same minority or sex as that of the com- plainant is an absolute defense in the defendant's rebuttal in supporting a nondiscriminatory jus- tification for its employment action.

Matching -Intentional discrimination based on a person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.

An employer must act with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected right of an aggrieved individual, and egregious intentional discrimination must be found before puni- tive damages are available.

Matching -Losses for the intangible injuries of emotional harm, such as emotional pain, suffering, inconve- nience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, and injury to character and reputation.

The theory of individual disparate treatment seeks to determine whether the employer deliber- ately treated the employee bringing a claim of intentional discrimination differently from other employees because of his or her membership in a protected class.