Camel Computers Inc., a U.S.-based company, has its operations in United Northlandia, a developing country. The culture of the country does not permit women to deal with men professionally, though there is no law limiting women to jobs that do not require much interaction with men. Mary, a U.S. citizen working for Camel Computers in United Northlandia, is denied a promotion to the position of senior client manager because the job would require Mary to interact with men inside and outside the company, and this would violate the cultural norms of United Northlandia. Mary believes this to be gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is she correct?

Mary worked as a chief chef in the Roasted Tilapia Restaurant (RTR) in Allen. When the management of the restaurant changed, Mary was asked to sign a non-compete agreement to keep her job. The non-compete agreement required Mary not to work as a chef for any other restaurant or open her own restaurant in the United States for the next 15 years if she decided to quit her job at RTR. A court would likely determine that this non-compete agreement:

Business necessity is an element of the plaintiff’s disparate impact claim.

According to Texas state law, an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of any of the following except:

It is unlawful for employers to refuse to hire on the basis of gender when gender acts as a bona fide occupational qualification.

An Asian restaurant may lawfully choose to hire only Asian servers in order to create a particular experience for the diners.

The First Family Painting Company (FFPC) employs two supervisors, seven painters, four helpers, two schedulers, two carpenters, and one office manager. They are all permanent workers of the company who work throughout the year for eight hours each day. The company’s owner wants to know whether her employees are covered under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. In this context, which of the following is true?

If an employee or applicant is pursuing or has successfully completed a rehabilitation program and demonstrates that she or he has a disability based on prior use, she or he is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and therefore entitled to reasonable accommodation.

For an eligibility test to be legally validated as an effective gauge of performance, an employer must show that the test:

Bob was hired by the Fishy Tropical Aquarium (FTA) and agreed to resolve any disputes arising out of his employment through arbitration. Even though Bob was performing his job efficiently, he was fired when he became a Rastafarian. Without waiting for the results of the arbitration, Bob filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC quickly filed a lawsuit on his behalf. FTA moved to have the EEOC’s lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that Bob had signed a valid mandatory arbitration agreement. In this scenario, the EEOC: