Packa Pharma is a large, growing company located in Missoula, Montana.  It is a warehouse packing facility for mail order drugs, processing hundreds of thousands of prescriptions for individuals all over the United States for delivery every month via overnight parcel service.  Packa Pharma offers bulk drug prices, accepts most insurances, and also provides special services for customers such as drug-interaction checks and special packaging by time-of-day or special drug instructions as ordered by the doctor for the patient.  This is a big help to seniors who take a variety of medicines at different times with different requirements, as well as their caregivers. 

Packa Pharma employs five hundred full-time and two hundred part-time workers.  They are an equal opportunity employer, but they make special efforts to recruit from The Crow Tribe of Montana.  (For purposes of these questions, please apply state and federal law but assume that local/municipal and tribal law do not change your analysis.)   There is no union, and no one has an individual contract of employment.  You have been hired to work in the HR Department, and your first task is reviewing the files of those terminated involuntarily and those not hired.

11.  Michelle, an African-American woman, has gone to HR numerous times to get help with her supervisor.  She said that her supervisor kept giving better training and development opportunities to other coworkers on her team, her supervisor didn’t seem to like her, and the top level work assignments were never assigned to her because her supervisor said she “wasn’t ready” for them.  HR did an investigation, but it found no discriminatory concerns.  First, Michelle’s coworkers were both men and women, so gender discrimination wasn’t an issue.  Although Michelle’s supervisor was a white woman, many of Michelle’s coworkers who were given the better assignments were African-American.  She was fired for excessive absences six months later.  Accordingly, the case file was closed.  Should it have been?

Yes, as there is no race discrimination or gender discrimination prima facie case possible

No, there is still a possible race discrimination prima facie case

No, there is still a possible gender discrimination prima facie case

No, there are other unexplored bases for illegal discrimination

Yes, because the doctrine of employment at will protects management here in case they missed something

 

12.  You notice that about half of the women who apply to Packa Pharma for packer positions are hired, but only 25% of women who apply for foreman positions are hired.  Similarly, about 45% of men who apply for packer positions are hired, but almost 90% of men who apply for foreman positions are hired.  Does this concern you?

 

            a.  Yes, it seems like there might be some intentional bias going on

            b.  Yes, it seems like there might be a selection mechanism illegally favoring men for foreman positions

            c.  Yes, possibly for both of the above reasons

            d.  No, neither of the above are concerns as there is no 4/5ths violation

13.  Remember the hiring numbers you were given for the foreman position in the previous question.  Upon further investigation, you find that all applicants for the foreman position are required to climb a ladder to the top shelf of the warehouse shelves in the event of a forklift failure.  (There are twenty available forklifts, and they have never all failed at once.)  Is this an illegal discriminatory policy?

            a.  No, because the doctrine of employment at will does not apply

            b.  No, because it is applied to everyone who applies equally – regardless of protected class status

            c.  Yes, because it rarely happens that a forklift fails.

            d.  Yes, given the hiring outcomes between men and women for this position and the lack of job-relatedness of the requirement.

            e.  Yes, but only if it can be shown to be designed to intentionally discriminate against a particular protected class.

 

14.  Packa Pharma requires all applicants to memorize and recite their mission statement before getting hired.  This requirement alone results in the denial of employment to hundreds of qualified workers a year – probably because their mission statement is five paragraphs long.  It is completely unrelated to any specific job, but Packa Pharma wants all employees to be able to remember and relate to their mission statement.  You sigh.  Is this legal?

 

            a.  Yes, it is legal, but kind of stupid because they are losing lots of good applicants

            b.  No, it is not legal because it is not job-related to any of the particular jobs at Packa Pharma

            c.  Maybe; it depends on the experienced protected class hiring ratios, but it is still kind of stupid

            d.  Maybe; it depends on if the company has proof that this isn’t intended to discriminate against protected classes

            e.  Yes, it is legal under the doctrine of employment at will.

 

15.  There is one current discrimination suit against Packa Pharma in the discovery phase right now.  Sharon, a junior employee in marketing, is alleging that she was denied a promotion based on gender.  She says that Sofia, also a junior employee in marketing, got the promotion instead of her because Sofia always dresses up, flirts with the men in the department, flatters all the bosses, and acts as if she does a lot of good work.  Sharon says in reality, Sofia is less qualified at the job and just good at office politics.  Sharon can show she was more qualified than Sofia for the promotion, that she is a woman, and that she didn’t get the promotion.  Has she made out a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII?

YesNoYesNo, but she might have prevailed on a negligent promotion claim

No

 

17.  Packa Pharma is considering what to do about Sharon’s lawsuit.  It decides to deny everything but not to offer any testimony from the decision makers about the promotion decision. (As it turns out, Sofia is a bit flirty and the promotion decision makers want no part of having to justify their actions.)  Does Sharon win the Title VII gender discrimination lawsuit because of the rebuttable presumption?

 

            a.  No, because the rebuttable presumption never arose

            b.  No, because once it arose they did not rebut it

            c.  Yes, but only because they have the right to do so under employment at will

            d.  Yes, because they are offering a pretext defense without a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason