1. Earlier, it was explained that a gratuitous agent is an agent nonetheless. Why do you think the court was unwilling to expand the definition of employee here?
2. If Ms. O’Connor had complained to her university and nothing had been done, would that have provided her with an alternative form of relief? In other words, would a university that received such a complaint have a duty to act?
3. Should Congress include people like Ms. O’Connor within the definition of employee? If they don’t, what avenue will she have to recover? Does this send the wrong message to people like Dr. Davis? Does this decision make students sent to hospitals for internships vulnerable to people like Dr. Davis who may take advantage of the fact that he cannot be sued for violation of Title VII?