BLAW 371 Quiz 3: Employment Law and Torts

Joshua Shasserre

There is a strong presumption in American law that an employee is to be considered to be "at-will".

True

Under the doctrine of "respondeat superior", an employer is held ________ liable for the negligent acts of an employee committed while the employee was acting within the scope of the employer's business

vicariously

In NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, the Supreme Court upheld Congress' ability to enact the National Labor Relations Act. What about this case was important to the Supreme Court's decision in Katzenbach v. McClung which upheld Title 2 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

The Jones case expanded Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce under the substantial economic effect test

Fred is an employee of Lincoln Bakery Company. While making deliveries on his usual route, Fred negligently causes an accident. Can Lincoln Bakery Company be held liable for Fred's negligence?

Yes, Lincoln Bakery Company can be liable based on the legal doctrine of "respondeat superior".

Precision Accounting, LLC, a large accounting firm, requires all of its new accountants to be licensed CPA's. Jim has an accounting degree and has worked as an accountant for forty years but is not a licensed CPA. Jim applies for a position with Precision but is denied employment. Jim sues Precision for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). How may Precision best defend itself against Jim's lawsuit?

Assert the Business Necessity Defense

Joe is employed by Husker Manufacturing. Joe is called to serve jury duty missing two weeks of work. When he returns, Joe is informed that he has been fired. Joe sues for wrongful termination. Is Joe likely to win his lawsuit?

Yes, unless the employer can show an overriding business justification for the firing

When a third party has notice of the Principal's existence and identity at the time of the transaction with the agent, in other words, when the Agent has disclosed the identity of the Principal, then it is the Principal and not the Agent that bears the liability for breach of contract with the third party

True

In order for an agency relationship to exist, the principal must have the right to exercise control over the agent but does not have to actually exercise control over the agent

True

In order for an agency relationship to exist, the principal must have exercised control over the work of the agent and not merely had the right to exercise control over the agent.

False

Categorize the Duties in an Agency Relationship as either a duty of the Agent to the Principal or a duty of the Principal to the Agent:

Compensation

Accounting

Notification

Indemnification

Principal to Agent → Compensation

Agent to Principal → Accounting

Agent to Principal → Notification

Principal to Agent → Indemnification

In Guz v. Bechtel National, where Guz sued for breach of an implied contract to be terminated only for good cause and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after he was fired by Bechtel National during a time of high profits, the supreme court held that Bechtel could:

fire Guz without cause because there was insufficient evidence of an implied contract of continued employment

In Cove Management v. AFLAC, Galgano, an independent contractor who solicited insurance business for AFLAC, rented office space from Cove under AFLAC's name. When Galgano defaulted on payments, Cove sued AFLAC contending that Galgano was its agent when he rented the office, so AFLAC was liable. The appeals court held that AFLAC:

was not obligated on the lease because Cove Management did not show that it detrimentally relied on Galgano's apparent authority

A principal is prohibited by law from classifying an agent or employee as an independent contractor in order to create a liability shield for the principal

True

For an employee to have a claim under workers' compensation, the employee must show:

she received a personal injury as a result of an accident at work

The Arkansas Court of Appeals in Long v. Superior Senior Care ruled that the employer was responsible for workers compensation for an independent contractor.

False

According to the 8th Circuit's holding in Hasenwinkel v. Mosaic, it is legal to terminate an at-will employee after they have exhausted their FMLA leave if the employee is unable to perform an essential function of the position because of a physical or mental condition.

True

As originally enacted, Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited employment discrimination by creating protected classifications. Which are these original protected classifications?

Race, Sex, Color, National Origin, Religion

In Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis of ________.

The Commerce Clause

Which of the following is not a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Age

Before an aggrieved employee may file a lawsuit in federal court claiming discrimination against their employer, the employee must exhaust their administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

True

Under the McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Test, the plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of discrimination in the application process on the part of the employer. In order to demonstrate a prima facie case before the burden of proof shifts to the employer, the plaintiff/applicant must show all of the following except:

The employer's reason for rejecting the applicant was a pretext for discrimination

In cases of Disparate Impact discrimination, the plaintiff does not need to prove intentional discrimination on the part of the employer but rather that the employment practices of the employer adversely affect employment opportunities for members of a protected class.

True

According to the Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Title VII is violated when "the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment" and the plaintiff / employee does not need to show extreme distress in order to prevail against the employer in a harassment case

True

An employer would have a bona fide occupational qualification defense for a business practice that is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business but has the effect of discrimination on the basis of race.

False

An employer may have a valid defense against a claim of sex discrimination when it can be shown that a test used by the employer is a statistically validated predictor of the ability of the employee to perform the primary functions of their job

True

In Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Technologies, Inc. The United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, reversed the U.S. District Court finding that the plaintiff (Yazdianpour) had a rightful claim of intentional misrepresentation.
(1) Of the necessary elements of the tort of intentional misrepresentation, which element, regarding the recipient's (plaintiff's) actions, was most pivotal to the 8th Circuit's decision?
AND
(2) What primary element required for the tort in Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Technologies, Inc is not required for the tort at issue in the case of Squish La Fish v. Thomco Speciality Products?

1 - Intent to induce reliance on the misstatement
2 - Scienter

Match the U.S. Supreme Court Case with its holding interpreting either the Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (i.e. the Commerce Clause) or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Griggs v. Duke Power → ______
Harris v. Forklift Systems → ______
NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel → ______
Katzenbach v. McClung → ______

McDonnell Douglas v. Green → ______

Griggs v. Duke Power → Title VII: Disparate Impact
Harris v. Forklift Systems → Title VII: Establishes definition of hostile work environment
NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel → Commerce Clause: Upholds broad federal power
Katzenbach v. McClung → Commerce Clause: Upholds Civil Rights Act under commerce power
McDonnell Douglas v. Green → Title VII: Creates the Burden-Shifting Test

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road the New York Court of Appeals did not find the rail road liable in a cause of action for negligence. Would it be more likely that the rail road would be held liable for negligence if the Court would have used the "substantial factor" legal test?

Yes, the substantial factor test does not require foreseeability in order to find a negligent actor liable

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, involving an adhesive that did not work as claimed, the appeals court held that the claim of negligent misrepresentation…

could proceed because the defendant may have negligently provided false information

Which of the following is not required to be shown in a successful action on the theory of strict liability in tort?

the producer acted negligently in producing the item

In MacPherson v. Buick Motor the New York Court of Appeals held for MacPherson for injuries caused by defective wheels on his Buick. What legal requirement had to exist between manufacturers and harmed consumers prior to the MacPherson decision?

privity of contract must exist between manufacturer and consumer

In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Greenman was injured when a tool his wife bought him malfunctioned. The Supreme Court of California imposed liability on Yuba Power Products based on what legal theory?

strict liability in tort

In Parish v. ICON, where a person was severely injured when jumping on a trampoline and sued its maker and the maker of a safety net for failure to warn, the Iowa high court held that the manufacturers were not liable because:

the warnings provided by the manufactures were adequate

In Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Technologies, Inc. The United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, reversed the U.S. District Court finding that the plaintiff (Yazdianpour) had a rightful claim of intentional misrepresentation.

Of the necessary elements of the tort of intentional misrepresentation, which element, regarding the recipient’s (plaintiff’s) actions, was most pivotal to the 8th Circuit’s decision?

Justifiable Reliance

The Tort of Intentional interference with contract or business relationship requires:
1.Existence of a Valid or Enforceable Contract or Business Relationship;
2.Defendant's knowledge of the contract or relationship;
3.Defendant's intentional inducement of the breach of contract or intentional interference with the business relationship;
4.Damages Resulting from the Wrongful Interference;
AND
5._________________, which was the key element at issue in the Hamby v. Health Management Associates, Inc. case.

Absence of Justification

The four necessary elements of a negligence cause of action are ___;___ ;___ ;___ and .

duty; breach; causation; damages

According to the Restatement (Third) of Torts Sections 1 & 2:

One engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who sells or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the defect. A product is defective when it contains a ______ defect, is defective in its ______, or is defective because of inadequate ______.

manufacturing; design; warning (or instruction)

In Seki v. Groupon, Magical Adventures alleged that Groupon breached a contract by failing to pay for redeemed vouchers. Why did the court affirm summary judgment for Groupon on the breach of contract claim?

Groupon paid or attempted to pay for all redeemed vouchers, and tender is equivalent to performance

In Seki v. Groupon, Magical Adventures claimed tortious interference with contractual relations. Which required element did the plaintiff fail to sufficiently establish?

damages (lack of evidence showing a causal connection between interference and financial injury)

To succeed on a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, the plaintiff must prove all of the following except:

the existence of a written contract (because even oral contracts may qualify, but here other elements like damages were missing)

In Seki v. Groupon, the court addressed a claim for invasion of privacy through misappropriation. The court held that:

a trade name may be protected under misappropriation because it is an extension of the individual proprietor

Under Georgia law as discussed in Seki v. Groupon, the tort of misappropriation requires that the defendant used the plaintiff’s name or likeness:

without consent and for the defendant’s financial gain