QUESTION 1 Mary, a supervisor of clinical administration at United Healthcare Se

QUESTION 1
Mary, a supervisor of clinical administration at United Healthcare Services had performed her job entirely from home since 2018 and had no job duties that required her to meet face-to-face or to enter the healthcare provider’s facilities. When the company implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy that required employees to be vaccinated in Oct. 2021, she received notifications directing her to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, even though the company’s vaccine policy stated it did not apply to full-time telecommuters. She informed her supervisor and human capital partner of her religious objections to vaccination and filed two requests for religious accommodation in which she sought exemption from the vaccination requirement, but the company denied her requests without any discussion with her and demanded she get a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days or be fired. When she did not get the vaccine within that time, she was fired.
Does Mary have a claim against the company? What is the basis for the claim? Please explain. (35 Points)
QUESTION 2
Three Chipolte young crew members, including one who was only 17 years old at the time, were to be harassed by their 29-year-old service manager and subsequently by a 24-year-old coworker. The harassment included the manager sexually assaulting the underaged employee and touching another worker’s buttocks. He also made unwelcome sexual comments and requests for sex, and isolated employees by trapping them in the restaurant’s walk-in refrigerator—blocking their exit—and caused them to fear for their safety. Despite the employees’ reports to the restaurant’s general managers of being sexually harassed, Chipotle failed to adequately investigate their complaints and did not take adequate remedial measures to stop the sexual harassment.
What actions, if any, can the workers take? Do the workers have to remain on the job to be able to pursue a claim? Please explain. (30 Points)
QUESTION 3
Beginning in late 2018, workers and supervisors at Transport America’s facility in North Jackson, Ohio harassed two mechanics because they are gay. The harassment included frequent use of gay slurs and other derogatory comments, physical violence and other inappropriate contact, defacement of uniforms, and other hostile behavior. The companies’ human resources and management officials were aware of the harassment but failed to take effective action to stop it and prevent it from recurring. Instead, after the mechanics reported the harassment, the shop manager threatened that anyone who went to human resources would lose their job. The mechanics suffered further harassment and retali­ation, including destruction of personal property, unfavorable assignments, false accusations, and discharge or being forced to quit.
What would be the basis of a claim from these two mechanics? What do they have to show in order to be successful? Do they have any remedies other than a claim based on Title VII? Please explain. (30 Points)
QUESTION 4
iTutorGroup, of Shanghai, hired tutors based in the United States to provide online tutoring from their homes or other remote locations. iTutorGroup programmed their tutor application software to automatically reject female applicants aged 55 or older and male applicants aged 60 or older. iTutorGroup rejected more than 200 qualified applicants based in the United States because of their age. The company closely controlled the way fully remote workers performed their jobs.
Are the applicants who were denied positions able to file discrimination claims even though iTutorGroup is not a United States Company? Are these workers protected by U.S. law? What possible actions could these applicants take? Please explain. (35 Points)
QUESTION 5
National Telecommuting Institute, Inc. (NTI), a Westwood, Massachusetts-based staffing firm, refused to place or refer blind and low-vision applicants as telephone-based customer service agents. NTI also denied applicants disability-related accommodations during their pre-employment application process. When NTI became aware that applicants for placement used accessibility technologies such as screen reader programs that convert computer text to speech, NTI told those applicants that no positions were available that could accommodate the software. NTI then failed or refused to place or refer the applicants for employ­ment. NTI also denied blind and low-vision applicants’ access to placement services by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to participate in NTI’s pre-employment application process.
Is there a claim based on Title VII discrimination? Is there a claim based on a different statute? Is this considered disparate treatment or disparate impact? Please explain. (35 Points)
QUESTION 6
Ecoserv instructed a former human resources employee to limit the number of African American workers she hired. The HR official also became aware of other discriminatory practices of not hiring women or older workers for non-office positions. The HR official opposed Ecoserv’s practices by refusing to discriminate and informing a manager that she believed the company’s hiring practices violated the law. Shortly thereafter, Ecoserv fired her.
Does the HR employee have a claim that can be made? What would be the basis for the claim? Did the HR employee suffer from discrimination? Please explain. (35 Points)
QUESTION 7
During negotiations, employer and union exchange information on the union’s proposal for pay raises. The employer rejects the proposal. The employer is adamant and refuses to agree to the raises. The union alleges that this is an unfair labor practice by the employer in that the employer is not bargaining in good faith. Is it? Please explain. (25 Points)
QUESTION 8
An employee submitted an expense report that included costs from a cell phone issued by his company. The company wanted to check the phone to verify information that the employee had provided and, because the employee was in the hospital, they obtained access to his office, as well as a key to his desk drawer, in order to look for the phone. Though they did not find the phone, they did find a pellet gun and ammunition. The employee was fired for violating the employer’s weapons ban. Did the supervisors violate the employee’s right to privacy? Is the fact that the employee shared the desk with other employees relevant? Please explain. (25 Points)