Home / Expert Answers / Operations Management / pragati-was-the-ceo-of-a-laboratory-which-ran-paternity-dna-testing-the-laboratory-employed-approxi-pa701

(Solved): Pragati was the CEO of a laboratory which ran paternity DNA testing. The laboratory employed approxi ...

Pragati was the CEO of a laboratory which ran paternity DNA testing. The laboratory employed approximately 35 full time low level techs and 6 full time supervisors along with 3 other upper level compliance and scientific specialists. 80% of the employees were of Indian descent at the U.S. based company. One of the African-American employees who had been a tech for 10 years with excellent performance reviews applied for an open supervisor position. He was interviewed by all of the other supervisors and graded based on the criteria of "1) past work performance, 2) ability to lead within the company's culture, and 3) likelihood of success within the business." If he is passed over for another employee with less experience, who happens to be of Indian descent, what would he have to show to prove a case of disparate impact?

  a. Discriminatory intent by the employer.   
  b. The test for promotion did not accurately gauge his ability to perform.   
  c. That the test is not a legitimate test of business necessity.   
  d. That the employer used testing or selection procedures that systematically excluded him because of his ethnicity.

Blake owned a construction company that built residential homes. Ujjal applied for a job as a laborer and was qualified, so Blake hired him. During the interview, Blake saw that Ujjal wore a turban, which he assumed was part of Ujjal's religious practice, but it didn't concern Blake. On the first day of work, however, Ujjal refused to wear a hardhat in place of or over his turban. Blake was concerned about the safety of his workers and mandated that all workers wear hardhats on active construction sites, and cited federal OSHA regulations as justification. Which of the following is correct?

  a. Blake can dismiss Ujjal for failure to follow OSHA regulations and company policy related to hardhats.   
  b. Blake must allow Ujjal to work without a hardhat, instruct him of potential hazards, and notify OSHA of his refusal.   
  c. Blake must allow Ujjal to work without a hardhat, but can be cited for safety violations under OSHA and will be subject to fines and penalties.   
  d. Ujjal must apply for a religious exemption with OSHA and get approval before he can go onto the job site without a hardhat.   

Malik was an assistant editor at a publishing house. He reported directly to Jennie, an Editor who had been with the company 20 years and who had a reputation for being one of the "decision-makers" for the company. A second editor position opened up and Jennie was given an opportunity to provide input on who to promote. Having always liked Malik, Jennie recommended him for the position, thinking that if he was no longer her direct report she would be in the clear to date him–although she had never previously told her feelings to him or anyone else. Which of the following is true in the majority of courts?

  a. Jennie is liable for discrimination, as it relates to the sexual harassment of Malik.   
  b. None of these are true.   
  c. Jennie is liable for sexual-based discrimination, as it relates to all the candidates for consideration besides Malik.   
  d. The company is liable for discrimination, based on Jennie's conduct, as it relates to the sexual harassment of Malik.   

Roger was the supervising attorney of several junior associates at a large law firm. Finding one of the associates to be attractive, he asked her out–which she refused. Embarrassed by her refusal, he threatened her that she should take him up on his offer so she didn't run the risk of a poor performance review. If she still refused and Roger never carried through on his threat, which of the following is true.

  a. There is no case for sexual harassment.   
  b. There is a case for hostile environment harassment.   
  c. There is a case for both quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harassment.   
  d. There is a case for quid pro quo harassment. 

We have an Answer from Expert

View Expert Answer

Expert Answer

Not - according to the guidelines, expert
We have an Answer from Expert

Buy This Answer $5

Place Order

We Provide Services Across The Globe