$1.$ A claim for retaliation can be brought only by the person who was retaliated against. T$/$F

$2.$ An employee applied for an open position in the company$$s IT Department and was told by the department manager $$he could not offer her the job position$$ because a higher$-$ranked manager had $$said that he wanted a Korean in that position.$$ If proven in a court of law, this statement is:

direct evidence of disparate impact

indirect evidence of disparate treatment

indirect evidence of disparate impact

direct evidence of disparate treatment

$3.$ An experienced female crane operator just hired by a new firm was told it was company policy that crane operators urinate over the side of their cranes rather than stop work. The same policy applied to male crane operators. She objected to the policy, was offered alternative jobs, but none as a crane operator, and she quit. Does she have a valid claim for sex discrimination?

No$,$ because she was offered alternative positions

No$,$ because practice is neutral, and therefore non$-$discriminatory

Yes, because the firm did not create a different rule for bathroom breaks for her

Yes, because the practice was a form of disparate impact

$4.$ For a disparate treatment case involving pretext, which is the correct order of proof?

plaintiff$$s primary evidence, defendant$$s primary evidence, plaintiff$$s rebuttal showing discriminatory motive

plaintiff$$s evidence supporting discriminatory intent, plaintiff$$s prima facie case, defendant$$s lawful motive,

plaintiff$$s evidence supporting discriminatory intent, defendant$$s lawful motive, plaintiff$$s prima facie case

plaintiff$$s prima facie case, defendant$$s lawful motive, plaintiff$$s additional evidence supporting discriminatory intent

$5.$ Fred sued his employer, Tech Inc., on adverse impact grounds. If Tech Inc. can show that the actions that affected Fred are job related and consistent with business necessity, Tech Inc. $($the plaintiff$)$ can still win by showing that:

the difference in selection rates across protected class groups is statistically significant

there is an alternative practice that would have less discriminatory effects, but Tech. Inc. declined to use it

the four$-$fifth$$s rule has been violated

Tech Inc. has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination

$6.$ In a disparate impact case, the focus is on the employer$$s intention. T$/$F

$7.$ In a disparate treatment case, the focus is on the employer$$s intention. T$/$F

$8.$ In disparate treatment cases:

the focus is on showing the discriminatory effects of the employer$$s actions

the focus is on showing that the employer holds racist or sexist views

he focus is on proving the employer$$s discriminatory intent

the focus is on showing that unfair treatment occurred

$9.$ Of the elements necessary to prove a case of disparate treatment involving pretext, which of the following is NOT required?

The plaintiff was not hired for the employment opportunity

The plaintiff applied for the employment opportunity

The plaintiff was as qualified for the employment opportunity as the person hired

The plaintiff was qualified for the employment opportunity

$10.$ Of the following, the most effective way for an employer to respond to an employee$$s claim of retaliation would be:

to show that the employee should never have been hired in the first place

to show that the employee is lying

to show that the employee belongs to a protected category.

to show that the employee was not retaliated against, but rather disciplined for poor performance or the like