s 22-25 are based on the following fact pattern: Miss Polly was recently hired by Sleaze Industries, Inc. to sell industrial strength fabric toxic waste containers known as "Super Sleaze-Bags." At the office, Polly's predominantly male coworkers frequently used profanity in her presence and told sexually provocative jokes. Polly considers the profanity and jokes offensive. A month after being hired Polly voiced her discomfort to her boss, Ms. O'School, Ms. O'School told Polly not to make a big deal out of it because, "Boys will be boys." The following week the owner of the company, Mr. Sleaze, offered to take Polly to Paris over the Fourth of July Holiday and suggested that if she agreed he would promote her to Marketing Director. When Polly declined Mr. Sleaze's invitation he fired her on the grounds that she was an "At Will" employee and a troublemaker for complaining about her coworkers' behavior. Sleaze Industries' employee handbook states that employees can only be terminated for good cause. Knowing that you are the ACCT 804 Legal Scholar that you are, Polly comes to you for advice. 22. Regard the profanity and jokes, you tell Polly that: a. b. c. d. 0. She would have a sexual harassment claim if she didn't have a female boss, Ms. O'School. Workplace profanity and provocative jokes alone do not amount to an actionable sexual harassment claim. She does not have a claim because her co-workers, not her boss, subjected her to unwanted profanity and provocative jokes. She waited too long to complain, she must be a present employee to bring a hostile work environment claim. Workplace profanity and sexually provocative jokes can form the basis of a hostile work environment claim. 23. Mr. Sleaze's Paris invitation: a. b. C. d. PP e. Constituted a social invitation that Polly was free to accept or reject. Constituted quid pro quo sexual harassment. Is evaluated from Mr. Sleaze's perspective -- did he subjectively intend that Polly consider the invitation to be work related. Lacks the basis of an actionable sexual harassment claim because she is not a present employe Lacks the basis of an actionable claim because Mr. Sleaze did not link the invitation to specifi to sex. 24. Polly's termination: a. b. C. d. Was legal because she was an "At Will" employee. Was legal because she caused dissention in the workplace. Was unlawful because it violated the Sleaze Industries, Inc. employee handbook. Constituted unlawful retaliation. C and D are correct. 25. An "At Will" employee means that an employee: a. b. C. d. e. Subject to certain public policy exceptions can be terminated for any reason. Can quit without giving notice. Must first enter into and sign a written contract before accepting employment. Must give the employer at least two week's written notice. A and are correct