PHR Landmark Cases Test with all Correct & 100%
Verified Answers |Latest Version |Already Graded A+
NLRB defined requirements an employer must fulfill before questioning an employee about a
ULP charge ✔Correct Answer-Johnnie's Poultry
Case that recognized adverse impact discrimination ✔Correct Answer-Griggs v Duke Power
Case that established the criteria for disparate treatment discrimination ✔Correct Answer-
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green
Need to establish evidence that test is related to content of the job; could use job analysis to do
so but not evidence from global performance ratings made by supervisors ✔Correct Answer-
Albemarle Paper v Moody
When a test procedure is challenged under constitutional law, intent to discriminate must be
established; no need to establish intent if filed under Title VII, just show effects ✔Correct
Answer-Washington v Davis
Reverse discrimination not allowed; race, however, can be used in selection decisions;
affirmative action programs permissible when prior discrimination established ✔Correct
Answer-Regents of University of California v Bakke
Supreme court ruled that the affirmative action plan did not violate Title VII since it included
voluntary quotas ✔Correct Answer-United Steelworkers v Weber
Supreme Court held that sexual harassment that alters an individual's terms and conditions of
employment violates Title VII. Court also ruled that common-law principles should be applied to
guide lower courts in determining employer liability. How these principles are to be applied was
later defined in Faragher and Ellerth. ✔Correct Answer-Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Supreme Court ruled that the county was justified in giving a job to a woman who scored two
points less on an exam than a man; county had an AAP that was flexible, temporary, and
designed to correct the imbalance of white males in the workforce ✔Correct Answer-Johnson
v Santa Clara Country Transportation Agency
Court ruled that persons with contagious diseases could be covered by the Rehabilitation Act
✔Correct Answer-School Board of Nassau v Arline
Court ruling that an employer had invaded an employee's privacy when a representative of the
company met with a psychologist (to whom the employee had been referred by an EAP) and
questioned him about her condition ✔Correct Answer-Leggett v First National Bank of Oregon
, Supreme Court ruled that bannering, handbilling, or attention-getting actions outside an
employer's property were permissible ✔Correct Answer-DeBartolo Corp v Gulf Coast Trades
Council
Supreme Court ruled that the rigid numerical quota system was unconstitutional; city had not
laid proper groundwork and had not identified or documented discrimination ✔Correct
Answer-City of Richmond v J.A. Croson Company
Supreme Court held that decisions about the welfare of future children must be left to the
parents who conceive, bear, support and raise them rather than to the employers who hire their
parents ✔Correct Answer-Johnson Controls
NLRB held that action committees at Electromation were illegal "labor organizations" because
management created and controlled the groups and used them to deal with employees on
working conditions in violation of the NLRA ✔Correct Answer-Electromation, Inc v NLRB
Board concluded that Dupont's six safety committees and fitness committee were employer-
dominated labor organizations and that Dupont dominated the formation and administration of
one of them in violation with the NLRA ✔Correct Answer-EI Dupont & Company v NLRB
Supreme Court ruled that in a sexual harassment case the plaintiff does not have to prove
concrete psychological harm to establish a Title VII violation ✔Correct Answer-Harris v Forklift
Systems Inc
Supreme Court ruling that Title VII plaintiffs must show that discrimination was the real reason
for an employer's actions ✔Correct Answer-St. Mary's Honor Center v Hicks
District court held that a school board could not use racial diversity as an "educational goal" or
as a justification for an affirmative action plan granting racial preferences in layoffs where there
was no evidence of past bias against racial minorities ✔Correct Answer-Taxman v Board of
Education of Piscataway
Supreme Court held that evidence of misconduct acquired after the decision to terminate
cannot free an employer from liability, even if the misconduct would have justified terminating
the employee ✔Correct Answer-McKennon v Nashville Banner Publishing Co
Supreme Court decision related to salting that held that a worker may be a company's
"employee" within the terms of the NLRA, even if, at the same time, a union pays that worker to
help the union organize the company ✔Correct Answer-NLRB v Town & Country Electric
Case in which district court applied inevitable disclosure doctrine even though there was no
noncompete agreement in place. An employee who had left his position in marketing PepsiCo's
All Sport sports drink to work for Quaker Oats and Company and market Gatorade and Snapple
Verified Answers |Latest Version |Already Graded A+
NLRB defined requirements an employer must fulfill before questioning an employee about a
ULP charge ✔Correct Answer-Johnnie's Poultry
Case that recognized adverse impact discrimination ✔Correct Answer-Griggs v Duke Power
Case that established the criteria for disparate treatment discrimination ✔Correct Answer-
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green
Need to establish evidence that test is related to content of the job; could use job analysis to do
so but not evidence from global performance ratings made by supervisors ✔Correct Answer-
Albemarle Paper v Moody
When a test procedure is challenged under constitutional law, intent to discriminate must be
established; no need to establish intent if filed under Title VII, just show effects ✔Correct
Answer-Washington v Davis
Reverse discrimination not allowed; race, however, can be used in selection decisions;
affirmative action programs permissible when prior discrimination established ✔Correct
Answer-Regents of University of California v Bakke
Supreme court ruled that the affirmative action plan did not violate Title VII since it included
voluntary quotas ✔Correct Answer-United Steelworkers v Weber
Supreme Court held that sexual harassment that alters an individual's terms and conditions of
employment violates Title VII. Court also ruled that common-law principles should be applied to
guide lower courts in determining employer liability. How these principles are to be applied was
later defined in Faragher and Ellerth. ✔Correct Answer-Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Supreme Court ruled that the county was justified in giving a job to a woman who scored two
points less on an exam than a man; county had an AAP that was flexible, temporary, and
designed to correct the imbalance of white males in the workforce ✔Correct Answer-Johnson
v Santa Clara Country Transportation Agency
Court ruled that persons with contagious diseases could be covered by the Rehabilitation Act
✔Correct Answer-School Board of Nassau v Arline
Court ruling that an employer had invaded an employee's privacy when a representative of the
company met with a psychologist (to whom the employee had been referred by an EAP) and
questioned him about her condition ✔Correct Answer-Leggett v First National Bank of Oregon
, Supreme Court ruled that bannering, handbilling, or attention-getting actions outside an
employer's property were permissible ✔Correct Answer-DeBartolo Corp v Gulf Coast Trades
Council
Supreme Court ruled that the rigid numerical quota system was unconstitutional; city had not
laid proper groundwork and had not identified or documented discrimination ✔Correct
Answer-City of Richmond v J.A. Croson Company
Supreme Court held that decisions about the welfare of future children must be left to the
parents who conceive, bear, support and raise them rather than to the employers who hire their
parents ✔Correct Answer-Johnson Controls
NLRB held that action committees at Electromation were illegal "labor organizations" because
management created and controlled the groups and used them to deal with employees on
working conditions in violation of the NLRA ✔Correct Answer-Electromation, Inc v NLRB
Board concluded that Dupont's six safety committees and fitness committee were employer-
dominated labor organizations and that Dupont dominated the formation and administration of
one of them in violation with the NLRA ✔Correct Answer-EI Dupont & Company v NLRB
Supreme Court ruled that in a sexual harassment case the plaintiff does not have to prove
concrete psychological harm to establish a Title VII violation ✔Correct Answer-Harris v Forklift
Systems Inc
Supreme Court ruling that Title VII plaintiffs must show that discrimination was the real reason
for an employer's actions ✔Correct Answer-St. Mary's Honor Center v Hicks
District court held that a school board could not use racial diversity as an "educational goal" or
as a justification for an affirmative action plan granting racial preferences in layoffs where there
was no evidence of past bias against racial minorities ✔Correct Answer-Taxman v Board of
Education of Piscataway
Supreme Court held that evidence of misconduct acquired after the decision to terminate
cannot free an employer from liability, even if the misconduct would have justified terminating
the employee ✔Correct Answer-McKennon v Nashville Banner Publishing Co
Supreme Court decision related to salting that held that a worker may be a company's
"employee" within the terms of the NLRA, even if, at the same time, a union pays that worker to
help the union organize the company ✔Correct Answer-NLRB v Town & Country Electric
Case in which district court applied inevitable disclosure doctrine even though there was no
noncompete agreement in place. An employee who had left his position in marketing PepsiCo's
All Sport sports drink to work for Quaker Oats and Company and market Gatorade and Snapple
