In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court held that:?
A) ?a plaintiff need to demonstrate and prove that the defendant used multiple prohibited factors (race, color, gender, religion, or natural origin) as a motive for an employment action
B) ?the plaintiff's demonstration for a "mixed motive" situation can only be made by circumstantial evidence.
C) ?if an employer has considered an illegal factor under Title VII (race, sex, color, religion, or national origin) in making an employment decision, the employer must demonstrate that it would have reached the same decision if it had not considered the illegal factor.
D) ?the employer violates Title VII when an illegal factor is considered, even though there may have been other factors also motivating the decision or practice.
A
You might also like to view...
Explain the role of accountants in the conceptual design stage
Summarize the advice for giving criticism and the two parts all criticism should include.
What will be an ideal response?
In a firm without a global product policy, the preference of the operations management people in the home office has always been to localize the product, or at least the production process, in as many overseas plants as possible.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Which of the following is an exception that would force going-rate prices to deviate from unit
costs? A) sudden spikes in prices due to perceived future cost increases B) shifts in the perception of product category, such as a product previously considered a luxury item becoming a commodity C) presence of a few major players in the industry D) long periods of stable economic conditions that bring about economic prosperity