Providing to plan participants under erisa

Question

Question 1: Which of the following are employers required to provide to plan participants under ERISA

• Plan information (i.e., features and funding).
• A grievance and appeals process for participants to get benefits from their plans.
• The right to sue for benefits and breaches of fiduciary duty.
• Plan information (i.e., features and funding), a grievance and appeals process for participants to get benefits from their plans, and the right to sue for benefits and breaches of fiduciary duty.
• Plan information (i.e., features and funding) and a grievance and appeals process for participants to get benefits from their plans, but not the right to sue for benefits and breaches of fiduciary duty.

Question 2: Reference - Styling Shenanigans. Candy, who operated a hair and nail salon called "Up Sweep," had a crush on Bruce, a stylist there. He paid her no attention. Finally, Candy told him that to get her approval of his new blow dryer request, he needs to take her on a date and give her a kiss. Bruce reluctantly did so. When they returned to work, Candy proceeded to make suggestive comments to Bruce in front of other employees and to request that he rub her shoulders. When she passed Bruce's station, she would caress him while he worked. Candy also decided that Robert was cute, and she showered him with the same type of attention. Robert enjoyed the attention, but Bruce was offended and filed a claim against Candy for sexual harassment. Bruce asked Robert to join in on the claim. Robert said that it personally never bothered him; but that if Bruce can collect, then he wants in on the action. Bruce told Robert that he is going to see a psychologist to substantiate his claim and that Robert should consider doing likewise. Robert tells him that he has no interest in seeing a psychologist but that his case is as strong as Bruce's. Robert says that while he found Candy entertaining, in all fairness, he should be able to recover if Bruce does so. What type of harassment was involved in Candy's indication to Bruce that if he wanted a new blow dryer, then he needed to take her out on a date?

• Quid pro quo
• Hostile work environment
• Sexual annoyance
• Quid pro quo, hostile work environment, and sexual annoyance
• Quid pro quo and hostile work environment, but not sexual annoyance

Question 3) Reference - Styling Shenanigans. Candy, who operated a hair and nail salon called "Up Sweep," had a crush on Bruce, a stylist there. He paid her no attention. He paid her no attention. Finally, Candy told him that to get her approval of his new blow dryer request, he needs to take her on a date and give her a kiss. Bruce reluctantly did so. When they returned to work, Candy proceeded to make suggestive comments to Bruce in front of other employees and to request that he rub her shoulders. When she passed Bruce's station, she would caress him while he worked. Candy also decided that Robert was cute, and she showered him with the same type of attention. Robert enjoyed the attention, but Bruce was offended and filed a claim against Candy for sexual harassment. Bruce asked Robert to join in on the claim. Robert said that it personally never bothered him; but that if Bruce can collect, then he wants in on the action. Bruce told Robert that he is going to see a psychologist to substantiate his claim and that Robert should consider doing likewise. Robert tells him that he has no interest in seeing a psychologist but that his case is as strong as Bruce's. Robert says that while he found Candy entertaining, in all fairness, he should be able to recover if Bruce does so. Of which of the following types of harassment were Candy's caresses and suggestive statements?

• Quid pro quo
• Hostile work environment
• Sexual annoyance
• Quid pro quo, hostile work environment, and sexual annoyance
• Quid pro quo and hostile work environment, but not sexual annoyance

Question 4) Reference - Styling Shenanigans. Candy, who operated a hair and nail salon called "Up Sweep," had a crush on Bruce, a stylist there. He paid her no attention. He paid her no attention. Finally, Candy told him that to get her approval of his new blow dryer request, he needs to take her on a date and give her a kiss. Bruce reluctantly did so. When they returned to work, Candy proceeded to make suggestive comments to Bruce in front of other employees and to request that he rub her shoulders. When she passed Bruce's station, she would caress him while he worked. Candy also decided that Robert was cute, and she showered him with the same type of attention. Robert enjoyed the attention, but Bruce was offended and filed a claim against Candy for sexual harassment. Bruce asked Robert to join in on the claim. Robert said that it personally never bothered him; but that if Bruce can collect, then he wants in on the action. Bruce told Robert that he is going to see a psychologist to substantiate his claim and that Robert should consider doing likewise. Robert tells him that he has no interest in seeing a psychologist but that his case is as strong as Bruce's. Robert says that while he found Candy entertaining, in all fairness, he should be able to recover if Bruce does so. Which of the following is true regarding Robert's claim of sexual harassment?

• He will be able to prevail only if he visits a psychologist.
• He will not be able to prevail because Candy did not require that he take any action toward her in order to receive a work-related benefit or avoid a work-related detriment.
• A recovery by Bruce does not establish that Robert should recover because Robert would need to show that he subjectively found Candy's conduct unwelcome.
• Candy's actions would be reviewed only on an objective basis, and what Robert subjectively thought is irrelevant.
• Robert will be able to recover only if he can establish that he did not benefit by favors at work based upon Candy's actions.

Question 5: Reference - Surprise Arrival. Gracie was surprised and pleased to find she was pregnant. She worked as a waitress at Good Food and was aware that Groucho, her employer, had allowed employees who were ill for reasons that were not work related to take paid time off. For example, her friend Craig was off with pay for two months after suffering a mild heart attack, and her friend Bonnie was off of work for three months when she ran her personal watercraft into a dock and broke her leg. Gracie told her employer Groucho about her pregnancy. He very angrily told her that pregnancy was completely voluntary, that he was not paying her a dime when she was off work, and that she would be lucky if he even allowed her to continue working at all because she would not be as cute when she gained weight. He also said that he serves families, and he does not want the kids to ask embarrassing questions of their parents regarding Gracie's condition. Gracie was very angry and threatened to sue. Groucho told her, however, that he had business law back in 1980 and that discrimination based on pregnancy is not even covered by Title VII. The employee handbook did not address the issue. Which of the following is true regarding Gracie's entitlement to be paid for time she is medically required to be off for pregnancy?

• Gracie is not entitled to be paid because courts have ruled that while an employer cannot fire a pregnant employee based on the pregnancy, employers do not have to pay the employee for time off because pregnancy is a voluntary condition.
• Gracie is entitled to be paid because all employers covered by Title VII must pay employees for the time they are medically required to be off work for pregnancy.
• Gracie is entitled to some pay because employers covered by Title VII must pay employees half their pay for the time they are medically required to be off work for pregnancy.
• Gracie is entitled to be paid because employers under Title VII must treat temporary disability caused by pregnancy the same as any other temporary disability and Groucho paid other employees who were off based upon temporary disabilities.
• Gracie is not entitled to be paid because courts have ruled that employers only have to pay employees for time they are medically required to be off for pregnancy if the employee handbook provides for such payments.

Question 6: Reference - Surprise Arrival. Gracie was surprised and pleased to find she was pregnant. She worked as a waitress at Good Food and was aware that Groucho, her employer, had allowed employees who were ill for reasons that were not work related to take paid time off. For example, her friend Craig was off with pay for two months after suffering a mild heart attack, and her friend Bonnie was off of work for three months when she ran her personal watercraft into a dock and broke her leg. Gracie told her employer Groucho about her pregnancy. He very angrily told her that pregnancy was completely voluntary, that he was not paying her a dime when she was off work, and that she would be lucky if he even allowed her to continue working at all because she would not be as cute when she gained weight. He also said that he serves families, and he does not want the kids to ask embarrassing questions of their parents regarding Gracie's condition. Gracie was very angry and threatened to sue. Groucho told her, however, that he had business law back in 1980 and that discrimination based on pregnancy is not even covered by Title VII. The employee handbook did not address the issue. What will be the likely result if Groucho defends on the basis that customers will object to Gracie's condition?

• If he can prove that is true, then Groucho will prevail on the defense of bona fide occupational qualification.
• Groucho will only prevail on a defense of bona fide occupational qualification if he can establish that he has an established history of barring pregnant servers and that he did not single out Gracie.
• Groucho will only prevail on a defense of bona fide occupational qualification if he can establish that Gracie was attempting to voluntarily get pregnant.
• Groucho will not prevail on a defense of bona fide occupational qualification because it is available in cases involving religion and national origin only.
• Groucho will lose on a defense of bona fide occupational qualification because he will not be able to establish that only non-pregnant employees can perform as servers.

Question 7: Reference - Multiplication. Phyllis, who is 30 years old, works for We Add for You Accounting. Phyllis has worked there for a number of years and is considering quitting in order to spend more time with her three active triplets, Sunny, Fussy, and Perky. She asks her boss, Bolivar, about the pension plan at We Add for You. Her boss tells her that she has no entitlement to information until she is at least 60 years old. Phyllis also asks about retaining her medical insurance protection if she quits and is told that she would have no right to do so. Bolivar also throws in that he has been monitoring her conversations and that he particularly enjoys the conversations between her and her single female friends involving failed dating experiences. He asks her to keep those up. Phyllis tells him that her personal phone calls are none of his business. Bolivar says that he can listen if he wants because the phones are his. Phyllis ends up starting her own company called We Multiply for You, and makes much, much more money. (In answering the following questions, assume all federal laws apply and that any pension and medical plan qualifies for regulation under federal law.) Assuming Phyllis quits, which of the following rights does she have under federal law to retain benefits so long as the benefits are provided to employees who are still working?

• None.
• The right to retain the medical benefits indefinitely, so long as she pays for them along with the allowable administrative fee.
• The right to retain the benefits for at least 12 months, with the cost born by the employer.
• The right to retain the benefits for at least 18 months, with the cost born by the employer.
• The right to retain the benefits for at least 18 months so long as she pays for the benefits along with the allowable administrative fee.

Question 8: Reference - Multiplication. Phyllis, who is 30 years old, works for We Add for You Accounting. Phyllis has worked there for a number of years and is considering quitting in order to spend more time with her three active triplets, Sunny, Fussy, and Perky. She asks her boss, Bolivar, about the pension plan at We Add for You. Her boss tells her that she has no entitlement to information until she is at least 60 years old. Phyllis also asks about retaining her medical insurance protection if she quits and is told that she would have no right to do so. Bolivar also throws in that he has been monitoring her conversations and that he particularly enjoys the conversations between her and her single female friends involving failed dating experiences. He asks her to keep those up. Phyllis tells him that her personal phone calls are none of his business. Bolivar says that he can listen if he wants because the phones are his. Phyllis ends up starting her own company called We Multiply for You, and makes much, much more money. (In answering the following questions, assume all federal laws apply and that any pension and medical plan qualifies for regulation under federal law.) Which of the following is true regarding Bolivar's statement that Phyllis has no entitlement to information until she is at least 60 years old?

• He is incorrect, and Phyllis is entitled to a "rights review description."
• He is incorrect, and Phyllis is entitled to an "entitlement description."
• He is incorrect, and Phyllis is entitled to a "summary plan description."
• He is incorrect, and Phyllis is entitled to a "plan analysis description."
• He is correct.

Question 9: Reference - Multiplication. Phyllis, who is 30 years old, works for We Add for You Accounting. Phyllis has worked there for a number of years and is considering quitting in order to spend more time with her three active triplets, Sunny, Fussy, and Perky. She asks her boss, Bolivar, about the pension plan at We Add for You. Her boss tells her that she has no entitlement to information until she is at least 60 years old. Phyllis also asks about retaining her medical insurance protection if she quits and is told that she would have no right to do so. Bolivar also throws in that he has been monitoring her conversations and that he particularly enjoys the conversations between her and her single female friends involving failed dating experiences. He asks her to keep those up. Phyllis tells him that her personal phone calls are none of his business. Bolivar says that he can listen if he wants because the phones are his. Phyllis ends up starting her own company called We Multiply for You, and makes much, much more money. (In answering the following questions, assume all federal laws apply and that any pension and medical plan qualifies for regulation under federal law.) Which of the following is true regarding Bolivar's listening to the personal phone calls of Phyllis?

• Bolivar can listen to the phone calls as long as he wants so long as he is Phyllis' supervisor.
• Bolivar can listen to the phone calls as long as he wants only if he is a sole proprietor and truly owns the phones himself.
• Bolivar can listen to the phone calls as long as he wants only if he has a policy prohibiting the making of personal calls.
• Bolivar can listen to the phone calls as long as he wants only if he notifies employees first that he is going to do so.
• Bolivar is prohibited from listening to the phone calls as long as he wants, and only limited exceptions exist for the monitoring of calls.

Question 10: Reference - Dog and Formals. Paul owns a dog grooming business and needs patient people to work there. He gives all applicants a test he obtained from a management firm that has been proven to measure psychological traits such as patience. Penny alleges sex discrimination after she fails the test miserably and Paul refuses to hire her. Paul tells her that there is no way he is giving her a dime because he is entitled to protect his client's dogs. Upon learning that her state lacked a state office representing the Equal Opportunity Commission, Penny immediately sues him in federal court alleging a violation of Title VII. Paul, who is getting tired of the dog grooming business, also opens a new formal wear shop and needs to hire employees there as well. He wants to appeal to high-school and college age young ladies attending proms and formals. Paul decides that he does not want older sales clerks to assist in choosing formal dresses. He only wants young, attractive ones. Paul runs an ad in the local paper seeking applicants for sales clerks and stating that a qualification for the job is computer training while in high school. Tina, age 60, applies and tells Paul that while she sees no reason that computer training should be required, she attended computer training in adult education and has excellent computer as well as sales skills. Paul refuses to hire her telling her that unless he follows the ad, he may be seen as practicing discrimination. Deciding that formal wear is more trouble than dogs, Paul shuts down the formal wear store. Which of the following is true regarding Paul's test for patience?

• Paul is entitled to test so long as the test is not designed, intended, or used to discriminate; and construct validity references measuring a psychological trait needed to perform the job.
• Paul is entitled to test so long as the test is not designed, intended, or used to discriminate; and credited validity references measuring a psychological trait needed to perform the job.
• Paul is prohibited from performing job testing for psychological traits although he would be allowed to test for other types of skills involving construct validity, such as word processing, so long as it could be shown that the skill was necessary for the job at issue.
• Paul is prohibited from performing job testing for psychological traits although he would be allowed to test for other types of skills involving credited validity, such as word processing, so long as it could be shown that the skill was necessary for the job at issue.
• Paul is prohibited by Title VII from doing any testing at all.

Question 11: Reference - Dogs and Formals. Paul owns a dog grooming business and needs patient people to work there. He gives all applicants a test he obtained from a management firm that has been proven to measure psychological traits such as patience. Penny alleges sex discrimination after she fails the test miserably and Paul refuses to hire her. Paul tells her that there is no way he is giving her a dime because he is entitled to protect his client's dogs. Upon learning that her state lacked a state office representing the Equal Opportunity Commission, Penny immediately sues him in federal court alleging a violation of Title VII. Paul, who is getting tired of the dog grooming business, also opens a new formal wear shop and needs to hire employees there as well. He wants to appeal to high-school and college age young ladies attending proms and formals. Paul decides that he does not want older sales clerks to assist in choosing formal dresses. He only wants young, attractive ones. Paul runs an ad in the local paper seeking applicants for sales clerks and stating that a qualification for the job is computer training while in high school. Tina, age 60, applies and tells Paul that while she sees no reason that computer training should be required, she attended computer training in adult education and has excellent computer as well as sales skills. Paul refuses to hire her telling her that unless he follows the ad, he may be seen as practicing discrimination. Deciding that formal wear is more trouble than dogs, Paul shuts down the formal wear store. Which of the following is true regarding Penny's action in federal court?

• Her lawsuit was improperly filed because she did not first file with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and she lacked a right to sue letter.
• Her lawsuit was improperly filed because she did not first insist on mediation.
• Her lawsuit was improperly filed because she did not first insist on arbitration.
• Her lawsuit was properly filed because her state had no state Equal Opportunity Commission.
• Her lawsuit was properly filed regardless of whether or not her state had a state Equal Opportunity Commission.

Question 12: Reference - Dogs and Formals. Paul owns a dog grooming business and needs patient people to work there. He gives all applicants a test he obtained from a management firm that has been proven to measure psychological traits such as patience. Penny alleges sex discrimination after she fails the test miserably and Paul refuses to hire her. Paul tells her that there is no way he is giving her a dime because he is entitled to protect his client's dogs. Upon learning that her state lacked a state office representing the Equal Opportunity Commission, Penny immediately sues him in federal court alleging a violation of Title VII. Paul, who is getting tired of the dog grooming business, also opens a new formal wear shop and needs to hire employees there as well. He wants to appeal to high-school and college age young ladies attending proms and formals. Paul decides that he does not want older sales clerks to assist in choosing formal dresses. He only wants young, attractive ones. Paul runs an ad in the local paper seeking applicants for sales clerks and stating that a qualification for the job is computer training while in high school. Tina, age 60, applies and tells Paul that while she sees no reason that computer training should be required, she attended computer training in adult education and has excellent computer as well as sales skills. Paul refuses to hire her telling her that unless he follows the ad, he may be seen as practicing discrimination. Deciding that formal wear is more trouble than dogs, Paul shuts down the formal wear store. Which of the following is true involving Paul's plan to require computer training in high school in order to eliminate older workers?

• He is not guilty of any violation without additional evidence of an intent to discriminate.
• He is not guilty of any violation because common sense tells us that younger people make better sales clerks.
• He is not guilty of any violation unless he can establish through a survey that most people prefer younger sales clerks.
• He is not guilty of any violation unless he can establish through a survey that most of the formal wear store's customers prefer younger sales clerks.
• He is guilty of violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Question 13: Discuss whether you ethically believe employment-at-will should be retained in the U.S. and whether you believe laws currently in place excessively restrict employers insofar as their ability to fire employees is concerned. In your answer specifically reference at least three federal laws impacting the employment-at-will doctrine and whether you believe the laws are needed and appropriate.

Question 14: Mona is a state representative. She believes that her state should pass a law mandating that all employees receive at least one week of vacation per year. Nick, one of her fellow representatives, tells her that the state legislature cannot do so because an increase in employment rights may only be granted by federal law. He tells her that only Congress in Washington D.C. could pass a law increasing benefits. Nick, on the other hand, wants to pass a law repealing the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act because he believes that younger workers should get a break. When Mona challenges him and disagrees, he tells her that state legislatures may reduce federal rights, just not add to them. Who is right on the issues involving vacation and the age act, and why?