1.) Labuk is a 20-year employee of Whirley Corporation. During his career with Whirley, Labuk has felt uncomfortable with his supervisor, Bob, because of his behavior. On one occasion, Bob told him that foreigners should stop seeking jobs in the United States if they cannot perform. On another occasion, Bob yelled at Labuk and called him an "idiot". Which of the following may be true in this case:

A.) Labuk 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.) Labuk does not have a harassment claim based on national origin because these two incidents, although offensive, do not create a hostile work environment.

C.Labuk 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.) Labuk 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.

2.) Magda 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, Magda 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 Magda decides to file a discrimination claim based on national origin?

A.) Magda 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 Magda's attire overlaps with her religion.

C.) Magda'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.) Magda 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.

3.) Dalip, 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, Dalip:

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.

4.) Melanie, a white female employed at The Office Corner for three months, is married to Muhammad, who is of Middle Eastern descent. Melanie has been subjected to verbal abuse almost every day ever since her co-workers became aware of her husband's ethnicity. She has been called a "traitor" and a "terrorist." Her co-workers refuse to work with her, and her supervisor condoned this behavior by assigning her tasks in the stockroom when previously, she assisted customers in the electronics department. Which of the following holds true in this scenario?

A.) Melanie does not have a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because she is not a member of a protected class.

B.)Melanie does have a national origin discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because she is being harassed based on the national origin of her husband.

C.) Melanie does not have a national origin discrimination claim because she has only been employed for three months.

D. ) Melanie does have a discrimination claim based on race only if she is a citizen of the United States.

5.) Cramer Corporation had an immediate need for a large group of workers to fulfill a project. Although it followed its normal hiring processes, in some cases short-cuts were taken in the interests of getting the workers on board as quickly as possible. As a result, Cramer inadvertently hired some workers without proper documentation. Which of the following best describes Cramer's liability in this situation.

A.) There is no liability for Cramer. If the undocumented workers are discovered, the consequences are for them and not for the company.

B.) Cramer is liable for failure to obtain proper documentation showing that the workers were eligible to work in the U.S. Further corporate officers of Cramer can be held personally liable for failure to satisfy these requirements. Civil and criminal penalties may apply.

C.) Cramer didn't know that the workers weren't eligible to work in the U.S., therefore it cannot be held liable.

D.) Only the person in charge of hiring at Cramer will be held accountable for bringing in undocumented aliens.

6.) Criminal penalties can be imposed for violations of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

A.) True B.) False

7.) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship when:

A.) citizenship discrimination has the purpose or effect of national origin discrimination.

B.)the victim is a citizen of a developed country.

C.)the victim is an illegal alien in the United States.

D.) citizenship discrimination is the only way to protect positions that are intimately related to the process of self-government.

8.) The discharge of a teacher from her services is upheld when, although fluent in English, she spoke with such a thick accent that her students found it difficult to follow her.

A.) True

B.) False

9.) Aim Stores, a national retailer, does not permit its employees to wear hats, caps, scarves, hoodies, or anything else on their heads.Aaleyah, a Muslim who wears a traditional hijab, scored very well on interviews but ultimately was not hired by Aim. Aaleyah believes that she was not hired because of the hijab.Which of the following best describes Aaleyah'sclaim, if any, against Aim Stores?

A.) Aaleyah never worked for Aim, so she has no Title VII claim against Aim.

B.) Aaleyah can make a Title VII claim against Aim, and will likely win if she can demonstrate that the hijab was the reason she wasn't hired.

C.) Aaleyah can make a Title VII claim against Aim, but will likely lose because Aim has the ability to set reasonable workplace policies.

D.) Aaleyah cannot win a Title VII claim against Aim because Title VII does not provide protection against religious discrimination.

10.) Petri, who runs a Basque restaurant, wants his diners to have an authentic culinary experience. Thus, he wants to recruit qualified individuals of Basque origin for his restaurant. Petri can avoid a claim of national origin discrimination and still limit the job to individuals of Basque origin by showing that:

A.) an applicant's ability to speak fluent Basque and understand Basque cuisine are bona fide occupational qualifications.

B.) U.S citizens view people with Basque ancestry as exotic.

C.)it is difficult for people with Basque ancestry to be employed in other jobs.

D.) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows employers to discriminate against employees or applicants on the basis of their national origin without any legitimate cause.