Mgmt 101 3 (3)
-
Maxine lost her job as an electrical engineer with a large company which had provided health insurance benefits for Maxine and her family. She now:
-
Must try to find insurance on her own or try to find another job with health insurance benefits.
-
Is protected under COBRA, which allows her continued health insurance coverage for 18 months as long as she pays the cost.
-
Is protected under COBRA, which requires her employer to continue her health insurance coverage for six months under whatever copayment arrangements she had while she was employed.
-
Has some protection under the NLRA, which requires her employer to pay for continued health insurance for three months following her termination if she did not leave the company voluntarily.
-
This quiz covers key employment law scenarios including COBRA coverage, discrimination in hiring, workers' compensation, workplace policies, and labor laws.
Quiz Preview
- 2.
Maude was denied employment with Trucks R Us as a warehouse worker because she didn't meet the weight requirement of 160 pounds. Trucks argued the weight requirement was reasonable because warehouse workers often have to lift things weighing up to 100 pounds. If she sues Trucks, she will
-
Lose, as the weight requirement seems like a reasonable occupational requirement.
-
Lose, as the 160-pound requirement doesn't discriminate.
-
Win, as the weight requirement is discriminatory and doesn't appear necessary for the requirement of lifting 100 pounds.
-
Win, as the employer specifically cannot have a weight requirement.
Correct Answer
A. Win, as the weight requirement is discriminatory and doesn't appear necessary for the requirement of lifting 100 pounds.Explanation
The correct answer is win, as the weight requirement is discriminatory and doesn't appear necessary for the requirement of lifting 100 pounds. This is because the weight requirement of 160 pounds for a warehouse worker seems arbitrary and unrelated to the actual job duties. It is discriminatory because it disproportionately affects certain individuals, like Maude, who may be perfectly capable of performing the job despite not meeting the weight requirement. Additionally, the argument that warehouse workers often lift things weighing up to 100 pounds does not justify the need for a specific weight requirement.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Jim was a mechanic. One day when he attempted to weld a car's gasoline tank, it exploded and he was hurt. He filed to collect workers' compensation. His employer resisted on grounds that Jim had been negligent and had also violated the express regulations of the company when he attempted to weld a gasoline tank. Which statement is correct?
-
Jim cannot recover if it is shown that his negligent conduct caused the explosion.
-
Jim cannot recover if it is shown that he violated the express regulations of his employer.
-
Workers' compensation doesn't apply in situations like this.
-
Jim can recover even if he was negligent and violated the employer's rules.
Correct Answer
A. Jim can recover even if he was negligent and violated the employer's rules.Explanation
Jim can recover even if he was negligent and violated the employer's rules. This is because workers' compensation is a no-fault system, meaning that employees are generally entitled to receive compensation regardless of their own negligence or violation of company regulations. The purpose of workers' compensation is to provide financial support to employees who are injured on the job, regardless of fault. Therefore, Jim's ability to recover does not depend on his own conduct or adherence to company rules.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Roxanne was fired from her job when her employer instituted a new policy that prohibited employees from smoking cigarettes. This requirement applied to off-duty time as well as job-related time. Roxanne claimed that she could not quit smoking and that she was wrongfully fired since she did not smoke in the workplace -- only when she was outside the building and during off-duty time.
-
The company has wrongfully fired Roxanne and is liable to her for damages.
-
The company would be liable to Roxanne only if there is a state statute prohibiting employers from passing such job-related requirements.
-
The company is not liable to Roxanne since the nonsmoking requirement is reasonable given the high cost of treating smoking-related illness.
-
The company is not liable to Roxanne since the United States Supreme Court has expressly ruled such a company policy does not violate the worker's right to privacy.
Correct Answer
A. The company would be liable to Roxanne only if there is a state statute prohibiting employers from passing such job-related requirements.Explanation
The correct answer suggests that the company would only be liable to Roxanne if there is a state statute that prohibits employers from implementing job-related requirements such as the non-smoking policy. This implies that if there is no such statute in place, the company is within their rights to enforce the policy and terminate Roxanne's employment.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Which of the following is true?
-
It is much easier for the government, as an employer, to test an employee for drugs or alcohol than it is for a private employer.
-
Generally speaking, in most states, it is easier for a private employer than the government to test an employee for drugs or alcohol.
-
Neither the government nor private employers may test employees for drugs or alcohol.
-
Both the government and private employers may test employees for drugs or alcohol without restriction.
Correct Answer
A. Generally speaking, in most states, it is easier for a private employer than the government to test an employee for drugs or alcohol.Explanation
Generally speaking, in most states, it is easier for a private employer than the government to test an employee for drugs or alcohol. This is because private employers have more flexibility in implementing drug and alcohol testing policies compared to the government, which may be subject to stricter regulations and legal requirements. Private employers can often conduct random drug tests, whereas government employers may need to have a reasonable suspicion or specific cause to test their employees. Additionally, private employers may have more discretion in determining consequences or disciplinary actions based on the results of drug or alcohol tests.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
In 1932, Congress passed what legislation prohibiting federal court injunctions in nonviolent labor disputes, thereby declaring that workers should be permitted to organize unions and use their collective power to achieve legitimate economic ends?
-
The Sherman Act.
-
The Norris-LaGuardia Act.
-
The National Labor Relations Act.
-
Labor-Management Relations Act.
Correct Answer
A. The Norris-LaGuardia Act.Explanation
The correct answer is the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This legislation was passed by Congress in 1932 and it prohibited federal court injunctions in nonviolent labor disputes. The act declared that workers should be allowed to organize unions and use their collective power to achieve legitimate economic ends. The Sherman Act is not the correct answer as it is a different piece of legislation that focused on prohibiting monopolies and promoting fair competition. The National Labor Relations Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act were both passed later and have different purposes.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Which of the following persons is an agent?
-
Diane, a shoe salesperson for a retail store.
-
Tim, a real estate broker for a large real estate company.
-
Craig, a telephone marketing employee.
-
All the above.
Correct Answer
A. All the above.Explanation
All the above options represent individuals who act as agents in their respective roles. Diane, as a shoe salesperson, represents the retail store and acts as their agent in selling their products. Tim, as a real estate broker, represents the real estate company and acts as their agent in facilitating property transactions. Craig, as a telephone marketing employee, represents the company and acts as their agent in promoting their products or services. Therefore, all of them can be considered agents based on their roles and responsibilities.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Can a person work as an agent for two different people with conflicting interests?
-
Yes, under the equal dignities rule.
-
Yes, provided the agent discloses to both principals that she is representing both persons and the principals agree to the dual relationship.
-
No, dual agency relationships are per se illegal.
-
No, this would be power coupled with an interest.
Correct Answer
A. Yes, provided the agent discloses to both principals that she is representing both persons and the principals agree to the dual relationship.Explanation
The correct answer states that a person can work as an agent for two different people with conflicting interests if the agent discloses this dual representation to both principals and they agree to it. This is based on the equal dignities rule, which allows for such dual agency relationships as long as there is transparency and consent from all parties involved.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
Which of the following is not required of an agency relationship?
-
Consideration.
-
Fiduciary relationship.
-
Consent of the parties to act as agent or principal.
-
Control of principal over agent's conduct.
Correct Answer
A. Consideration.Explanation
An agency relationship is a legal relationship where one party (the agent) acts on behalf of another party (the principal). In this relationship, the agent has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the principal. Consent of the parties to act as agent or principal is necessary to establish the agency relationship, and the principal must have control over the agent's conduct. However, consideration, which refers to the exchange of something of value between parties, is not required for an agency relationship to exist.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Janet was employed as a sales representative for Esday, Inc. An appreciative customer gave her a diamond bracelet for all her hard work on a complicated contract. Can Janet keep the bracelet?
-
Yes. The bracelet was given to Janet personally and intended for her.
-
Yes, but only if she discloses the gift to Esday and Esday consents to her keeping the bracelet.
-
No. An agent is not allowed under any circumstances to personally profit as a result of the agency relationship.
-
No. The bracelet is regarded as an unfair trade practice and violates antitrust law.
Correct Answer
A. Yes, but only if she discloses the gift to Esday and Esday consents to her keeping the bracelet.Explanation
Janet can keep the bracelet, but only if she informs her employer, Esday, about the gift and receives their permission to keep it. This is because as an employee, Janet has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of her employer and avoid any conflicts of interest. By disclosing the gift and obtaining consent, Janet ensures transparency and avoids any potential accusations of impropriety or personal gain from the agency relationship.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Nikki was a tax accountant with HBR Accounting. Nikki decided to do some tax consulting in the evenings and on wekkends. HBR is unaware of Nikki’s consulting work. Which statement is correct?
-
Nikki has not breached a fiduciary duty to HBR since her consulting is done after her work for HBR.
-
Nikki has not breached a fiduciary duty to HBR since her behavior does not reflect badly on the accounting firm.
-
Nikki has not breached a fiduciary duty to HBR since Nikki has a contractual relationship with her clients, not her employer.
-
Nikki has breached a fiduciary duty to HBR since she is competing with HBR.
Correct Answer
A. Nikki has breached a fiduciary duty to HBR since she is competing with HBR. -
- 12.
Under a written contract dated May 1, Jodi hired Jenna to buy a piece of lakefront property. On May 30, Jenna finalized a deal with Brandon for the purchase of the land and a contract was signed. On May 31, Jenna learned Mrs. O'Leary had died on May 29. Which statement is correct concerning the contract Jenna entered into with Brandon?
-
The contract is void since the agency terminated May 29.
-
The contract is valid since the agency’s purpose was achieved before Jenna was notified of Mrs. O'Leary's death.
-
The contract is voidable at the option of Mrs. O'Leary's estate.
-
The contract is voidable at the option of Brandon.
Correct Answer
A. The contract is void since the agency terminated May 29. -
- 13.
Megan was employed by a large company. Her supervisor told her to falsify government reports. She refused and was fired. She sued for wrongful discharge. Her employer claimed since Megan was an at-will employee, she had no legal right to claim it was liable for damages. Is the employer right?
-
Yes. An at-will employee does not have a legal right to claim wrongful discharge of employment.
-
Yes. As an employee, Megan owes a duty of loyalty to her employer. If the company was found to have acted illegally by falsifying the reports, it (not Megan) would be liable.
-
No. Even though Megan was an at-will employee, such employees may not be fired without just cause.
-
No. Though at-will employees do not have extensive rights relative to job security, they may not be legally fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.
Correct Answer
A. No. Though at-will employees do not have extensive rights relative to job security, they may not be legally fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.Explanation
The employer is not right. Even though Megan was an at-will employee, such employees may not be fired without just cause. In this case, Megan refused to falsify government reports, which is an illegal act. At-will employees may not be legally fired for refusing to perform an illegal act, regardless of their limited job security rights.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
Which of the following may be legitimate nondiscriminatory criteria for selection of an employee?
-
Age.
-
Race.
-
Color.
-
Educational level.
Correct Answer
A. Educational level.Explanation
Educational level may be a legitimate nondiscriminatory criterion for selection of an employee because it is directly related to the qualifications and skills required for a particular job. Employers have the right to consider an individual's educational background to ensure they have the necessary knowledge and expertise to perform the job effectively. However, age, race, and color are protected characteristics under anti-discrimination laws, and using them as criteria for selection would be considered discriminatory.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
Ron and several fellow workers of Vicy, Inc., a small manufacturing company, wished to organize a union. When Vicy learned of this activity, it issued a bulletin to all workers stating that a union will only hurt the company and that “we are a family that can solve any problems ourselves—we do not need union activists from outside our company trying to tell us what to do!” Which statement is correct concerning the bulletin issued by Vicy?
-
Vicy has committed an unfair labor practice. Vicy must remain neutral during the organizing drive.
-
Vicy has committed an unfair labor practice. The bulletin constitutes outrageous interference with the union organizing campaign.
-
Vicy has not committed an unfair labor practice. An employer may vigorously present anti-union views to its employees.
-
Whether Vicy has committed an unfair labor practice depends on whether the bulletin was approved by the NLRB.
Correct Answer
A. Vicy has not committed an unfair labor practice. An employer may vigorously present anti-union views to its employees.Explanation
The correct answer is that Vicy has not committed an unfair labor practice. This is because an employer is allowed to present anti-union views to its employees. The bulletin issued by Vicy, stating that a union will only hurt the company and that they do not need outside union activists, falls within the bounds of an employer expressing their opinion on unionization. It is not considered outrageous interference or a violation of labor laws.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
Zoe, who works as a retail clerk, wishes to talk with her co-worker about organizing a union. Her employer threatens to fire her if she talks with other workers about union activity in the presence of customers while she is working. Does the employer have a legal right to make this threat to Zoe?
-
Yes.
-
Yes, but only if expressly authorized by state law.
-
Yes, but only if expressly authorized by the National Labor Relations Board.
-
No.
Correct Answer
A. Yes.Explanation
The employer has a legal right to make this threat to Zoe because employers are generally allowed to restrict employees from discussing union activity in the presence of customers. While employees have the right to engage in union activities, employers also have the right to maintain a certain level of professionalism and protect their business interests. However, it is important to note that this answer assumes there are no specific state laws or regulations or National Labor Relations Board rulings that would restrict the employer's actions.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
Exec-Pac, Inc. is extremely opposed to having its employees organize. The union attempting to organize a collective bargaining unit filed an unfair labor practices claim with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that Exec-Pac illegally interfered with its unionization drive. The NLRB, convinced that an election would be pointless, waived the requirement of an election and certified the union as the exclusive representative of Exec-Pac's workers. Which statement is correct?
-
The NLRB had to be convinced that the employer's interference with the union's attempt to organize the workers was outrageous.
-
The NLRB has the authority to waive the requirement of a union election if it believes the employer has shown anti-union bias.
-
The NLRB may waive an election if the employer has distributed written materials stating it is opposed to a union.
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. The NLRB had to be convinced that the employer's interference with the union's attempt to organize the workers was outrageous.Explanation
The NLRB has the authority to waive the requirement of a union election if it believes the employer has shown anti-union bias.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Mega Corp is negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with a union. The company claims it is not financially able to pay with the wages increase the union is demanding. Which statement is correct?
-
The union has a legal right to inspect the financial records of the company to verify that the employer cannot pay the proposed wage increase.
-
It is an unfair labor practice if the employer claims it cannot pay the higher wages but refuses to allow the union to inspect its financial records.
-
Both of the above are correct.
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Both of the above are correct.Explanation
Both of the above statements are correct. The union does have a legal right to inspect the financial records of the company to verify its claim of financial inability to pay the proposed wage increase. Additionally, it is considered an unfair labor practice if the employer claims it cannot pay higher wages but refuses to allow the union to inspect its financial records.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
A union declares it will be engaging in a partial strike whereby its employees will alternate between working for a period of time and then walking off the job for an indefinite time. Thus, employees may work for a few days or only a few hours before walking off the job again. The employer claims the union does not have the legal right to engage in a partial strike. Which statement is correct?
-
The employer is correct. The union must either strike or work—it cannot alternate between working and striking.
-
The employer is correct only if the union does not state the specific hours or days workers will be off the job. The law requires the union to provide the employer with at least seven days' notice of when workers will be off the job.
-
The employer is not correct since the NLRA expressly states workers have a right to engage in a partial strike.
-
Whether the employer is correct depends on state law.
Correct Answer
A. The employer is correct. The union must either strike or work—it cannot alternate between working and striking.Explanation
The employer is correct. The union must either strike or work—it cannot alternate between working and striking. This is because the employer claims that the union does not have the legal right to engage in a partial strike. If the union chooses to strike, then all employees must walk off the job and cease working. If the union chooses to work, then all employees must continue working without any interruptions. The option of alternating between working and striking is not legally permissible.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
Employees of Truan went on strike because Truan refused to bargain in good faith. After an unfair labor practices strike, the striking workers are:
-
Entitled to get their jobs back.
-
Not entitled to get their jobs back.
-
Entitled to get their jobs back but only as they become available.
-
Fired.
Correct Answer
A. Entitled to get their jobs back.Explanation
The employees of Truan went on strike because Truan refused to bargain in good faith. This indicates that the strike was a result of unfair labor practices. In such cases, the striking workers are usually entitled to get their jobs back once the strike is over, as a means of protecting their rights and ensuring that they are not unfairly penalized for exercising their right to strike. Therefore, the correct answer is that the striking workers are entitled to get their jobs back.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
All the forms of organization listed below have limited liability except the:
-
Limited liability company.
-
General partnership.
-
Subchapter "S" corporation.
-
Corporation.
Correct Answer
A. General partnership.Explanation
A general partnership does not have limited liability, meaning that the partners are personally liable for the debts and obligations of the business. In contrast, a limited liability company, Subchapter "S" corporation, and corporation all offer limited liability protection to their owners. This means that the owners' personal assets are generally protected from the company's debts and liabilities.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
Jill and Jane plan to start a business in which each will be an equal owner, but only Jill will be active in the business. They do not want to form a corporation. Their best choice for business organization is probably:
-
A general partnership.
-
A franchise.
-
A limited partnership.
-
Two sole proprietorships.
Correct Answer
A. A limited partnership.Explanation
A limited partnership would be the best choice for Jill and Jane because it allows for one partner (Jill) to be active in the business while the other partner (Jane) can be a passive investor. This structure provides limited liability protection for Jane while still allowing Jill to have control and make decisions for the business. A general partnership would require both partners to be actively involved in the business, while a franchise involves a contractual relationship with a larger company. Two sole proprietorships would not provide the desired equal ownership structure.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
Murray was a partner in a large firm. He died unexpectedly. His son, Frank, wanted to take over for his father in the partnership and was well qualified to do the work his father had done. Which statement best describes Frank's rights in the partnership if he inherits the interest?
-
Frank has a right to take over for his father in the partnership.
-
Frank is entitled to the value of his father’s interest in the partnership, but not to become a full partner.
-
Frank has no rights to his father's partnership interest.
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Frank is entitled to the value of his father’s interest in the partnership, but not to become a full partner.Explanation
Frank is entitled to the value of his father's interest in the partnership, but not to become a full partner. This means that Frank will receive the financial benefits of his father's share in the partnership, but he will not have the same rights and responsibilities as a full partner. He may not have voting rights or decision-making power within the partnership. However, he will still be entitled to receive his father's share of the profits or assets upon the dissolution of the partnership.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
Jill was a limited partner in a retail business that was sued by a customer who fell in the store. The customer claimed the business was negligent in caring for its floors. Which statement best describes Jill’s potential liability?
-
Jill has no potential liability to the customer.
-
Jill can be held personally liable to the customer since she is a partner.
-
Jill can only be liable to the amount of her investment.
-
Jill is personally liable, but the woman must first collect from the general partners before collecting from Jill.
Correct Answer
A. Jill can only be liable to the amount of her investment.Explanation
Jill, as a limited partner, has limited liability in the retail business. This means that her personal assets are protected and she can only be held liable up to the amount of her investment in the business. Therefore, she is not personally liable to the customer's claim beyond the extent of her investment.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
The business form that is taxed as a partnership and gives all owners limited liability, is:
-
General partnership.
-
Corporation.
-
Limited liability company.
-
Limited partnership.
Correct Answer
A. Limited liability company.Explanation
A limited liability company (LLC) is a business form that provides the owners with limited liability, meaning their personal assets are protected from the company's debts and liabilities. LLCs are also taxed as partnerships, allowing the owners to avoid double taxation. This makes the LLC the correct answer as it combines the benefits of limited liability and partnership taxation.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
John, his parents, and three brothers own all the stock of their family farm corporation. This corporation is probably:
-
An S corporation.
-
A C corporation.
-
A closely held corporation.
-
An LLC.
Correct Answer
A. A closely held corporation.Explanation
The given information suggests that the ownership of the family farm corporation is limited to John, his parents, and three brothers. This indicates that the corporation is closely held, meaning that it is owned by a small number of individuals who are likely family members.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
Ollie leased a building in Old Town. Ollie installed a washer and dryer unit and a new furnace in the basement of the building with new duct work throughout the building. Upon expiration of the lease, Ollie intends to remove the washer and dryer, but not the furnace. The washer and dryer can easily be removed without harming anything. Removal of the furnace, however, will damage the building. Are the washer, dryer, and furnace fixtures?
-
The washer, dryer, and furnace are all fixtures.
-
The furnace is a fixture, but the washer and dryer are not.
-
The washer and dryer are fixtures, but the furnace is not.
-
The furnace and the washer are fixtures, but the dryer is not.
Correct Answer
A. The furnace is a fixture, but the washer and dryer are not.Explanation
The explanation for the correct answer is that fixtures are items that are permanently attached to the property and are considered part of the property. In this case, the furnace is permanently installed in the basement with new duct work throughout the building, making it a fixture. However, the washer and dryer can be easily removed without causing any damage to the building, indicating that they are not fixtures.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
The purpose of recording a deed or other real estate transaction is to:
-
Establish the rights between the grantor and the grantee.
-
Assure the grantee that a transfer of real property is now complete.
-
Establish the type of deed granted (i.e. warranty deed, special warranty deed, or quitclaim deed).
-
Put the rest of the world on notice that the transaction occurred between the grantor and the grantee.
Correct Answer
A. Put the rest of the world on notice that the transaction occurred between the grantor and the grantee.Explanation
Recording a deed or other real estate transaction serves to put the rest of the world on notice that the transaction occurred between the grantor and the grantee. This means that anyone who may have an interest in the property can be aware of the transfer and cannot claim ignorance of the transaction. It helps to establish the priority of the transaction and protects the rights of the grantee.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 21, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 17, 2009Quiz Created by
Samofman
Back to top