Employers are liable for most torts committed by an independent contractor within the scope of the working relationship.

Bob was an employee at Cougar Commercial Realty. Per Bob’s work agreement, his monthly income was supplemented by substantial commissions that the company promised to pay based on his performance. Bob had been working on a major real estate deal for five months and had almost seized the deal when he was fired from his job. Even though his employer got the major deal, Bob was not paid any commission for his hard work on that deal. Thus, it can be concluded that Bob has a:

Bob is a paying resident at the McKinney Senior Center. He is often seen making ethnic slurs at Mary, an Indonesian employee. He also refuses to be served or helped by her and others of the same national origin as Mary. Sometimes, he even complains to the other residents that Mary is not qualified for her job and needs to be replaced. Mary reports these statements to her supervisor but is asked to ignore Bob because he is just a strange old man. Mary files a complaint of national origin discrimination. Which of the following holds true in this scenario?

Mary, an electronics assembler at Fox Industries Factory, is sexually propositioned by Bob, who is the head of the quality control department. Upon Mary’s refusal, Bob starts finding fault with the quality of her work, and she is eventually demoted. Mary believes that if she complains against Bob to the company’s management, no action will be taken against him because of his reputation with senior management. Though Fox Industries has a sexual harassment policy in place, Mary does not use it. Instead, she files a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Which of the following holds true in this case?

Once an employee has articulated a prima facie case of discrimination based on national origin, the burden falls to the employer to identify both a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (LNDR) for the adverse employment action.

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.