When courts consider whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, under the economic realities test, courts consider whether a worker is economically dependent on the business or is in the business for himself or herself.

The “lion tamer” doctrine is that an employer’s decision is discriminatory, even if the decision maker was motivated by a legitimate concern, if the decision maker was relying upon negative information from another employee motivated by unlawful discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

Bob is hired as a financial analyst at Eager Beaver Investors under the employment condition that for the first three months he will not be eligible for any incentives. Based on Bob’s performance during this three-month period, the company will classify him as a permanent employee, raise his salary by 10 percent, and provide him a share of incentives. However, even after Bob performs above the standard during the first five months at her job, the company refrains from acting accordingly to avoid certain costs. Thus, Bob can avail a cause of action for:

It is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire for employment in the United States an individual without verification of his or her employment eligibility.

Bob hires Francois, an alien working in the United States with the legal authority to do so. One month later, Francois loses his right to work in the United States. Which of the following holds true in this case?

An independent contractor is generally a person who contracts with a principal to perform a task according to her or his own methods and who is not under the principal’s control regarding the physical details of the work.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that an employer may not make an employment decision based on the individual’s HIV status unless customers object.

As a general rule, an English-only rule may be used at a workplace if it is needed to promote the safe or efficient operation of the employer’s business.

A willful misclassification of workers by an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) may result in imprisonment and a very significant fine.

When amending Title VII, Congress added a definition for sexual orientation, which is a protected category under that statute.