saint leo hra545 module 1 quiz latest 2016 October

Week 1 quiz

Question 1. In Douglas Schultz v. Capital International Security, Incorporated, were the five plaintiffs independent contractors or employees? Did the employers have control over the actions of the plaintiffs or were the plaintiffs allowed to manage and use their own discretion over their actions? Who provided the tools of the trade in this action? Were the agents work actions scripted or left to their best judgment?

Question 2. What are the six primary protected classifications protected against discrimination by Title VII and enforced by the EEOC? Where in employment discrimination actions is it easiest for a violation of discrimination to occur? May employers select prospective employees from a select pool if that pool clearly is discriminatory to one of the protected classes? May employers express a preference for a particular protected class member is the advertising and hiring process?

Question 3. Differentiate between the independent contractor and an employee. What test and what factors come into consideration in making this determination?

Question 4. In Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. v. Delores Hobley, did the court allow a non-compete contract to be enforceable against an independent contractor as well as against an employee? Did the Caring Hearts agency employ both independent contractors and employees? Are geographical limitations allowed in non-compete contracts? May a period of time of limiting employment in excess of one year be allowed to stand in a non-compete agreement? What reasons exist, if any, to disallow independent contractors to be restricted in the same manner as an employee in the enforceability of a non-compete agreement?

Question 5. As set forth in Jamie Evans v. Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars may an unpaid intern be entitled to a tort claim equal to that of an employee who suffered the same harm? Specifically, may it be the case that an employer may be held liable for negligent actions in hearing the tort offender? May a high corporate officer be held liable if only for failing to act reasonably?