From the PowerPoints:

1) What does a person have to prove to have a prima facie case of

gender discrimination? (slide 6) That they are in/or were in a protected
class, qualified for the position, Suffered an adverse employment action (ie
an instance of discrimination because they are part of a protected class).
From the text:
2) Page 344 What is gender discrimination and provide examples of
what constitutes this type of discrimination. Basically an instance
where a requirement is stipulated that affects one gender inequally. Such as
the example of women wearing heels to work, or woman can freely take time
off to care for her sick children but a man who does so is ridiculed and treated
differently by his superiors. There are literally a million examples.
3) Please read ppg 345 of your text. In your workplace do you think
there is unequal pay between men and women? Why or why not? No,
because I am self employed and the only employee. But, I have worked in
numerous jobs and I know for a fact in several of them women were paid less
then men who are equally qualified.
4) Pages 360-2 Describe 5 kinds of Gender Discrimination 1) Requiring
one gender to work different hours or job positions; 2) differing pay by
gender; 3) subjecting one gender to terms and conditions of employment
(women should wear dresses, etc); 4) Subjecting one gender to unwanted
teasing, harassment, joking, comments, etc that the other gender is not
subject to; 5) Interview questions that are asked of only one gender.
5) Page 364-5 What is Gender Plus Discrimination and provide an
example. Discrimination of gender and another type of discrimination. Not
being willing to hire an unwed mother is a good example.
6) Page 366 369
A) Are grooming standards permissible? Yes.
B) Could a company require that males cant wear earrings while
allowing women to do so? Yup.
C) Why? Title VII protects employees or potential employees from not being
treated fairly during the pursuit of employment, or while employed. But,
grooming codes do not inhibit employment opportunity and are this not
protected.
7) Page 369-71- Can Hooters refuse to hire males for its waitstaff
position? Why does/can it continue to only hire women as servers?
What is the distinction between Playboy and Hooters in terms of
complying with Title VII? No it technically cant; If it willing to foot the bill
of settling out of court the discrimination cases it can continue its behavior
indefinitely; Hooters is a restaurant and makes its money through food sales.
Although it has built a particular client expectation, a man can serve food just
as well as a woman; Playboy on the other hand makes its money solely from
the nude images of the women inside. They have published a separate
magazine to cater to its female clientele.
8) Page 379-81 What is Pregnancy Discrimination and provide an
example. PDA prohibits an employer from using pregnancy, child birth, or
related medical conditions as the basis for treating an employee differently
than any other employee with a short-term disability if that employee can
perform the job. Examples include (but not limited to) not providing an
 employee with light duty if needed, when such duties are provided for other
employees w/ short-term disabilities; or firing an employee upon discovering
they are pregnant.
9) Please read Case Study 1 on ppg. 394-5 and answer the questions on
page 395.
1) Not surprised. I mean its 2017 and we just elected a president who things
talking about women as objects and body shaming them is acceptable
behave for an adult let alone the president.
2) If the availability of female firefighter gear was an issue and time was
needed to free up funds from somewhere to procure it (it does seem to be a
specialty item). Since safety is an issue they could be assigned or trained in
alternative tasks (fire hose operation as an example) or even administrative
duty until the safety equipment arrives then they can be put back to regular
duty. Doing nothing, or pretending an issue doesnt exist is unacceptable.
3) Firefighting has been traditionally a male dominated job. The firefighters
that have been doing it for decades that not are chiefs and administrators
likely felt threatened. This is pretty common in jobs that were male
dominated (protector roles).
A) A company has one size fits all personal protective equipment
for fall protection. Could this be a violation of the law? Why or
why not? The company employs men and women. Yes, it could be a
violation unless it safely covers sizes from 5 to 66 which is the average
range of sizes for women (low end) and men (high end) and various
weights. This is unlikely however. If they could restrict the sizes of the
people they employ without being discriminatory they might also get
away with this.
10) Please read the Case Study 2 on page 395-6 and answer the
case questions on page 396.
1) They were an unrealistic measure of strength. They did disproportionately
affect women applicants.
2) Have an actual strength requirement. Require as part of an application
several reps of exercises with weights based on mass/body index. So women
are required to lift less weight and men more weight.
3) No, I have been good at picking up on disparate impact. Once I saw that
more women were impacted by this policy then men it is an easy call.
11) Please read the Case Study 4 on pages 397 - 8 and answer the
case questions on page 398. One of the reasons I am having you
read this because I have worked on many construction sites where
the facilities were abysmal for both gendersfrom my viewpoint this
is about human dignity rather than the law.
1) Not at all. I hate public restrooms and the porta-potty even more so. that
woman gets my sympathy. It was pretty clear the company needed to provide
better (cleaner) facilities and not doing so disproportionately affected the
female construction workers.
2) Yes, see above.
3) Each day someone would have been responsible for checking them to
make sure they were clean, making sure they had TP, seat covers, sanitary
wipes could be provided instead of a handwashing station. Once they were
drained someone would be assigned to power wash them.
 A) In my consulting activities I always try to visit the restrooms. I
truly believe the condition of the rest room is an indication of how
the company perceives its workers. Thoughts? Do you think that
the state of the rest room could be an indicator of how they treat
its workers? I would agree with that. I get no one likes to clean up after
others but a bathroom that is run down, unsanitary or poorly supplied
speaks to the companies indifference.

12) Page 382-3 - What are Fetal protection policies and are they
a violation of Title VII?

Go the following Link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-

1215.ZS.html If you have a problem going to the link Google UAW
vs. Johnson Controls. This is a 1991 case.
A) What was the main issue regarding this case? Women were barred
from a position that was regularly exposed to lead which can affect fetuses
and the ability to conceive.
What was the position of Johnson Controls? Were they acting
ethically? Explain. The company claimed it did so to prevent harm to
unborn children or womans fertility.
13) What was the courts decision? They considered it a violation of
Title VII.
14) Do you agree? Why? You betcha. Lead also lowers sperm count thus
affecting a mans ability to father children. Yet they were not barred from
working with lead.
15) What if information was provided that demonstrated that lead
has an adverse affect on the ability of males to reproduce (there was
information provided to this fact). Would that strengthen or weaken
the argument of not allowing women of childbearing age in the lead
battery area? It would strengthen it but also lead to questions about why
men could do so.
16) What if there a case made that the way to advance in the plant
was to work in the lead battery area and although this did not sway
the court the UAW asserted that this was correct. Would that add to
the discrimination suit? What if the job paid more? (it did). What if
women had voluntary sterilization so they could work in the area?
Some did Worse!!! Even Worse!