Buddy the Elf is from Sweden. He is currently working at his dream job, Santa's Workshop, in North Pole, Alaska, making toys. Santa's Workshop distributes a policy that states all employees must be under 5 feet tall. Buddy the Elf is over 6 feet tall, as most people are from Sweden. The policy is consistently applied across the board and Buddy is fired. He sues the North Pole for discriminatory practices. Which of the following statements is true:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question presents a scenario where a neutral policy (all employees must be under 5 feet tall) is applied to Buddy, who is over 6 feet tall, and he sues for discriminatory practices. We will evaluate each answer option individually.
Option 1: 'Unless Buddy can show that the North Pole meant to discriminate on a protected class, such as national origin, he will lose.' This statement focuses on intent to discriminate based on a protected class. However, under discrimination law, especially Title VII, a plaintiff can prevail if a neutral policy has a discriminatory impact on a protected class, even if there was no explicit intent to discriminate. The key issue is whether the policy results in a disparate impact on national origin or another protected characteristic; it is not strictly necessary to prove intentional discrimination. Therefore this option is incomplete or inaccurate in describing the legal standard for such a claim.
Option 2: 'Buddy will win as you can never terminate an employee based on height.' In many jurisdictions, height can be a trait that correlates with protected characteristics in certain contexts (and even if not itself a protected class, a policy that disproportionately targets individuals with a protected characteristic may be challenged). However, the claim here hinges on whether height alone is a protected characteristic or used as a proxy for protected status. The statement overgeneralizes the protection and asserts an absolute rule that you can never terminate someone for height, which is false in general employment law because legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons can justify termination where no protected class is involved or where no disparate impact exists. This makes the option incorrect.
Option 3: 'Buddy will lose as he is an at-will employee and, therefore, can be terminated at any time for any reason.' The at-will doctrine allows termination for any reason not prohibited by law, but it does not permit illegal terminations. A termination based on national origin or another protected characteristic would still be unlawful despite at-will status. This option misstates the protection against unlawful discrimination and conflates at-will status with legality of the termination. Therefore it is incorrect.
Option 4: 'Buddy will win if he can show that the policy has a discriminatory result based on national origin.' This option correctly identifies that a neutral policy can still be unlawful if it yields a discriminatory impact on a protected class (national origin). If Buddy can prove disparate impact or another form of illegality tied to national origin, he has a valid claim. The statement aligns with anti-discrimination principles that protect individuals from policies that disproportionately affect protected classes, even when the policy is facially neutral. Therefore this option is the most accurate reflection of how such cases are analyzed.
In summary, evaluating the options reveals that the statements differ in how they treat intent, at-will status, and the concept of disparate impact. The most legally sound claim is that Buddy can prevail if he demonstrates that the neutral height policy produces a discriminatory result based on national origin, rather than insisting on intentional discrimination or absolute prohibitions on termination at any time for any reason.

类似问题

Question at position 21 Griggs v. Duke Power identified and defined disparate impact when a protected class of employees challenged the company’s selection requirements for hire or transfer.FalseTrue

The zoo requires that the giraffe handlers be at least 6 feet tall, due to the animal’s long necks. Relying on its policy, the zoo refuses to hire Penelope, who is 5 feet 2 inches in height, for the position of giraffe handler. Under these circumstances, the zoo has:

To violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act under the concept of disparate impact, an employer must have acted with discriminatory intent.

The zoo requires that the giraffe handlers be at least 6 feet tall, due to the animal’s long necks. Relying on its policy, the zoo refuses to hire Penelope, who is 5 feet 2 inches in height, for the position of giraffe handler. Under these circumstances, the zoo has:

Disparate-impact discrimination occurs when an employer intentionally discriminates against an employee who is a member of a protected class.

To which one of the following cases would the concept of disparate impact potentially apply?

Under _________, intent is irrelevant.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单