Problem 1: The employees of Alexander Hotel are unionized. The owner has cultivated several union members to be his personal friends - they drink and play cards together every week. Once they are drunk the owner discreetly solicits and shares information with them. In this way, he has been able to know ahead of time when union activities adverse to his interest will begin, allowing him to sabotage them. He knows what prospective employees are particularly sympathetic to the union so he knows not to hire them. And he discreetly discloses false data suggesting the Hotel is in financial trouble to discourage the union from asking for raises. When they do ask for raises he stonewalls the negotiations by insisting that he cannot afford the raises but refusing to open his books when they request verification.
Discuss the legality of these practices.
Problem Gorton is HIV positive. He is also has severe allergies. The medication he takes to control the debilitating effects of his allergies causes his nasal membranes to dry out, resulting in frequent nosebleeds. Even though his allergy medications control the most severe symptoms of his allergies, they do not keep him from sneezing frequently in the presence of certain popular perfumes and colognes. It would be extremely expensive to install air filtering devices that would rid the air in the bank of the types of fragrances that trigger Gorton's sneezing. The essential functions of the job Gorton is applying for requires sitting at a desk in an open -air bank lobby eliciting information from prospective customers to determine how the bank can best meet their needs. He has performed this job before and, with the possible exception of his recent health issues, is very qualified to do this job. Yet after telling the bank of his conditions the bank refuses to hire Gorton. He sues based on the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).
Who wins and why? Would it matter if Gordon never told the bank about his HIV and allergies? If no, why not? If yes, how does it effect the outcome? Would it matter if the bank simply refused to fill the position at all?