Want to know:
Rainbow Airlines, a new air carrier headquartered in Chicago with routes from Rome to Canberra, extensively studied the psychology of passengers and determined that more than 93 percent of its passengers felt most comfortable with female flight attendants between the ages of twenty-one and thirty-four. To increase its profitability, the company issued a policy of hiring only such people for jobs in the air but opened all ground jobs to anyone who could otherwise qualify. The policy made no racial distinction, and, in fact, nearly 30 percent of the flight attendants hired were black. Choose ALL of the following responses that are true.a) This practice falls under disparate treatment discriminationb) This practice falls under disparate impact discriminationc) This practice is not discriminatory because Rainbow Air conducted an extensive study before implementing it.d) This practice is discriminatory because it excludes a protected category of applicants (males) and is not business related.
Get a detailed, AI-powered explanation for this question and thousands more on StudyFetch.
Get the Answer for FreeHow StudyFetch Helps You Master This Topic
AI-Powered Answers
Get instant, detailed explanations powered by AI that understands your course material.
Deep Understanding
Go beyond surface-level answers with step-by-step breakdowns and examples.
Personalized Learning
Sparky adapts to your learning style and helps you connect ideas.
Practice & Test
Turn any question into flashcards, quizzes, and practice tests to solidify your knowledge.
Explore More Questions
- I talked about the case Scheck v Burger King, in which Scheck is the franchisee and entered into a franchise agreement with Burger King, the franchisor, to own and operate a Burger King franchise location. Burger King opened another location within a couple miles of Mr. Scheck's location. There was no restriction in the franchise agreement that prevented Burger King from opening a location near the franchisee's location. What did the court conclude? Select the best answer.- The case was dismissed. The contract terms (franchise agreement) clearly did not restrict Burger King from opening a restaurant near Mr. Scheck's location.- Mr. Scheck, the franchisee should have read the franchise agreement more thoroughly before signing it, he is now bound to the terms and has no redress for this encroachment on his territory.- The court ruled in favor of Burger King, the franchisor, and concluded Mr. Scheck simply has "buyer's remorse", there is risk in every business transaction.- Even though the franchise agreement did not address territory, the court found Burger King had violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing present in every commercial contract.
- Causalité scientifique (incertitude scientifique mais présomption de fait)
- the "plain view" is intended to protect college students from getting caught with drugs or alcohol