W4 Midterm · Please use the following hypothetical scenario to answer the following 5 questions. Each question is worth 20 points for a total of 100 points. When complete upload your document to the dropbox below. Scenario Janet Johnson, an African American woman, has been working at the Tennessee Hydroelectric plant for 15 years. During that time, his performance reviews have been exemplary. She decided to apply for the new plant foreman position. Although she felt that she was eminently qualified for the position, she also was growing tired of a certain good old boy culture at the plant. For years, the plant has had a culture of highly lewd “jokes,” and many of the employees had also engaged in inappropriate touching of female employees. The plant had an anti-harassment policy on record, but Janet’s boss shrugged and said “boys will be boys” when she reported the harassment to him. Competition for the position was fierce. But ultimately, Jose Martinez, a Chilean man, received the position. Jose had 7 years of experience. Unbeknownst to the applicants the promotion board secretly ran a credit check on the applicants. Janet credit score came in as lower as average, and this factored into the board’s decision. Although he met the qualifications of the position, one of the hiring managers told Janet in confidence that Janet was the most qualified person for the job. And the other managers had applied a racial preference on Jose’s behalf due to there never having been a Latino manager at the plant even though Latino’s represented 35% of employees at the plant.  Janet sues the plant for disparate treatment, disparate impact, and sexual harassment under Title VII. Questions 1. List the elements of disparate treatment and apply them to this case.  Can Janet prove a prima facie case? How would the plant rebuff these charges? Who would ultimately prevail?  1. List the elements of a disparate impact case and apply them to this case? Will Janet prevail on this charge?   1. List the elements of the sexual harassment case and apply them to this case? Can the plant establish an affirmative defense?  1. If the plant argues that it applied a racial preference to Jose to correct a manifest imbalance at the plant of underutilization of certain minorities, will the plant prevail? Why or why not? 1. Was it legal to use the credit check as a factor in the promotion decision the way that it was done here? Why or why not? W4 Midterm · Please use the following hypothetical scenario to answer the following 5 questions. E ach question is worth 20 points for a total of 100 points. When complete upload your document to the dropbox below. Scenario Janet Johnson, an African American woman, has been working at the Tennessee Hydroelectric plant for 15 years. During that time, h is performance reviews have been exemplary. She decided to apply for the new plant foreman position. Although she felt that she was eminently qualified for the position, she also w.

1. W4 Midterm
· Please use the following hypothetical scenario to answer the
following 5 questions. Each question is worth 20 points for a
total of 100 points. When complete upload your document to the
dropbox below.
Scenario
Janet Johnson, an African American woman, has been working
at the Tennessee Hydroelectric plant for 15 years. During that
time, his performance reviews have been exemplary. She
decided to apply for the new plant foreman position. Although
she felt that she was eminently qualified for the position, she
also was growing tired of a certain good old boy culture at the
plant. For years, the plant has had a culture of highly lewd
“jokes,” and many of the employees had also engaged in
inappropriate touching of female employees. The plant had an
anti-harassment policy on record, but Janet’s boss shrugged and
said “boys will be boys” when she reported the harassment to
him.
Competition for the position was fierce. But ultimately, Jose
Martinez, a Chilean man, received the position. Jose had 7 years
of experience. Unbeknownst to the applicants the promotion
board secretly ran a credit check on the applicants. Janet credit
score came in as lower as average, and this factored into the
board’s decision. Although he met the qualifications of the
position, one of the hiring managers told Janet in confidence
that Janet was the most qualified person for the job. And the
other managers had applied a racial preference on Jose’s behalf
due to there never having been a Latino manager at the plant
even though Latino’s represented 35% of employees at the
plant. Janet sues the plant for disparate treatment, disparate
impact, and sexual harassment under Title VII.

2. Questions
1. List the elements of disparate treatment and apply them to
this case. Can Janet prove a prima facie case? How would the
plant rebuff these charges? Who would ultimately prevail?
1. List the elements of a disparate impact case and apply them
to this case? Will Janet prevail on this charge?
1. List the elements of the sexual harassment case and apply
them to this case? Can the plant establish an affirmative
defense?
1. If the plant argues that it applied a racial preference to Jose
to correct a manifest imbalance at the plant of underutilization
of certain minorities, will the plant prevail? Why or why not?
1. Was it legal to use the credit check as a factor in the
promotion decision the way that it was done here? Why or why
not?
W4 Midterm
·
Please use the following hypothetical scenario to answer the
following 5 questions. E
ach
question is worth 20 points for a total of 100 points. When
complete upload your
document to the dropbox below.
Scenario
Janet Johnson, an African American woman, has been working
at the Tennessee Hydroelectric plant for

3. 15 years. During that time, h
is performance reviews have been exemplary. She decided to
apply for the
new plant foreman position. Although she felt that she was
eminently qualified for the position, she also
was growing tired of a certain good old boy culture at the plant.
For years,
the plant has had a culture of
highly lewd “jokes,” and many of the employees had also
engaged in inappropriate touching of female
employees. The plant had an anti
-
harassment policy on record, but Janet’s boss shrugged and said
“boys
will be boys” when she
reported the harassment to him.
Competition for the position was fierce. But ultimately, Jose
Martinez, a Chilean man, received the
position. Jose had 7 years of experience. Unbeknownst to the
applicants the promotion board secretly
ran a credit check on
the applicants. Janet credit score came in as lower as average,
and this factored
into the board’s decision. Although he met the qualifications of
the position, one of the hiring managers
told Janet in confidence that Janet was the most qualified
person f
or the job. And the other managers
had applied a racial preference on Jose’s behalf due to there
never having been a Latino manager at the
plant even though Latino’s represented 35% of employees at the
plant.

4. Janet sues the plant for
disparate treatment,
disparate impact, and sexual harassment under Title VII.
Questions
2.
List the elements of disparate treatment and apply them to this
case.
Can Janet prove a prima
facie case? How would the plant rebuff these charges? Who
would ultimately prevail?
3.
List t
he elements of a disparate impact case and apply them to this
case? Will Janet prevail on
this charge?
4.
List the elements of the sexual harassment case and apply them
to this case? Can the plant
establish an affirmative defense?
5.

5. If the plant argues that
it applied a racial preference to Jose to correct a manifest
imbalance at
the plant of underutilization of certain minorities, will the plant
prevail? Why or why not?
6.
Was it legal to use the credit check as a factor in the promotion
decision the way that i
t was
done here? Why or why not?
W4 Midterm
following 5 questions. Each
question is worth 20 points for a total of 100 points. When
complete upload your
document to the dropbox below.
Scenario
Janet Johnson, an African American woman, has been working
at the Tennessee Hydroelectric plant for
15 years. During that time, his performance reviews have been
exemplary. She decided to apply for the
new plant foreman position. Although she felt that she was
eminently qualified for the position, she also
was growing tired of a certain good old boy culture at the plant.
For years, the plant has had a culture of
highly lewd “jokes,” and many of the employees had also
engaged in inappropriate touching of female
employees. The plant had an anti-harassment policy on record,
but Janet’s boss shrugged and said “boys
will be boys” when she reported the harassment to him.

6. Competition for the position was fierce. But ultimately, Jose
Martinez, a Chilean man, received the
position. Jose had 7 years of experience. Unbeknownst to the
applicants the promotion board secretly
ran a credit check on the applicants. Janet credit score came in
as lower as average, and this factored
into the board’s decision. Although he met the qualifications of
the position, one of the hiring managers
told Janet in confidence that Janet was the most qualified
person for the job. And the other managers
had applied a racial preference on Jose’s behalf due to there
never having been a Latino manager at the
plant even though Latino’s represented 35% of employees at the
plant. Janet sues the plant for
disparate treatment, disparate impact, and sexual harassment
under Title VII.
Questions
2. List the elements of disparate treatment and apply them to
this case. Can Janet prove a prima
facie case? How would the plant rebuff these charges? Who
would ultimately prevail?
3. List the elements of a disparate impact case and apply them
to this case? Will Janet prevail on
this charge?
4. List the elements of the sexual harassment case and apply
them to this case? Can the plant
establish an affirmative defense?
5. If the plant argues that it applied a racial preference to Jose
to correct a manifest imbalance at
the plant of underutilization of certain minorities, will the plant
prevail? Why or why not?
6. Was it legal to use the credit check as a factor in the
promotion decision the way that it was

7. done here? Why or why not?