MCLE Self-Assessment Test

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This article is provided solely for research and archival purposes. MCLE self-study credit is no longer available. Even if you follow the instructions and submit payment you will not be granted MCLE self-study credit. Please note that low-cost MCLE is provided by the California Lawyers Association, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6056.

Answer the following questions after reading the article on attorneys' fees. Use the answer form provided to send the test, along with a $20 processing fee, to the State Bar. Please allow at least eight weeks for MCLE certificates to reach you in the mail.

Assume all plaintiff-employees are U.S. citizens unless otherwise indicated; all defendant-employees are engaged in interstate and/or international commerce and have a sufficient number of employees to be covered by both laws; all plaintiff-employees are qualified for the positions they seek.

1. Alice was employed in Los Angeles by XYZ Inc., a wholly owned California subsidiary of a Japanese electronics company. She alleges she was denied a promotion because she was too young (32) for the position. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

2. Bob was employed in Los Angeles by XYZ Inc., a wholly owned California subsidiary of a Japanese electronics company. He alleges he was denied a promotion because he was too old (72) for the position. His claim is within the scope of the Title VII.

3. Carol was employed in Los Angeles by XYZ Inc., a wholly owned California subsidiary of a Japanese electronics company. She alleges she was denied a transfer to the Tokyo office of the parent company because she was a woman. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

4. Daniel was employed in Los Angeles by XYZ Inc., a wholly owned California subsidiary of a Japanese electronics company. He alleges he was denied a promotion because he is a man. His claim is within the scope of Title VII.

5. Ellen was employed in Los Angeles by ABC Inc., a California company with branch offices located throughout the world. She alleges she was denied a transfer to the Tokyo office of the firm because she was a woman. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

6. Frank, a Chinese national who is a permanent resident of the U.S., was employed in Los Angeles by ABC Inc., a California company with branch offices located throughout the world. He alleges he was denied a promotion because he is not a U.S. citizen. His claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

7. Grace, a Chinese national who is a permanent resident of the U.S., was employed in Los Angeles by ABC Inc., a California company with branch offices located throughout the world. She alleges she was denied a transfer to the Tokyo office of the firm because she was a woman. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

8. Henry, a Chinese national who is a permanent resident of the U.S., was employed in Beijing by ABC Inc., a California company with branch offices located throughout the world. He alleges he was denied a promotion because he is over 50. His claim is not within the scope of ADEA.

9. Isabelle was employed in Beijing by ABC Inc., a California company with branch offices located throughout the world. She alleges she was denied a promotion because she is over 50. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

10. Jen, a U.K. citizen, was employed in Beijing by ABC Inc., a California company with branch offices located throughout the world. She alleges she was denied a promotion because she is Chinese-American. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

11. Lori was employed in the Los Angeles branch office of Nippon Elevators, a Japanese company. She alleges she was the victim of sexual harassment by the office manager, a Japanese national. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

12. Matthew was employed in the Los Angeles branch office of Nippon Elevators, a Japanese company. He alleges he was the victim of sexual harassment by the office manager, a U.S. citizen. His claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

13. Nancy was employed in the Los Angeles branch office of Nippon Elevators, a Japanese company. She alleges she was denied a transfer to the Tokyo headquarters because she is a woman. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

14. Oscar applied for a job in Tokyo with Nippon Elevators, a Japanese company which was recruiting engineers in Los Angeles. During the interview he was told he was too old (52) for the position. His claim is within the scope of Title VII.

15. Robert applied for a job in Tokyo with Nippon Elevators, a Japanese company which was recruiting engineers in Los Angeles. During the interview he was told the company did not hire African-Americans for positions in Tokyo. His claim is within the scope of Title VII.

16. Sumiko is a Japanese national working at the Tokyo headquarters of Nippon Elevators. She alleges she was the victim of sexual harassment by the office manager, a U.S. citizen. Her claim is not within the scope of Title VII.

17. Teruo was employed in Tokyo by XYZ-Japan, the corporate parent of XYZ Inc., a wholly owned California subsidiary. He was terminated when he reached the age of 65. His claim is within the scope of the ADEA.

18. Victoria was employed in Los Angeles by XYZ Inc., a wholly owned California subsidiary of a Japanese electronics company. She alleges she was denied a promotion because she was too young (32) for the position. Her claim is not within the scope of ADEA.

19. William was employed in Los Angeles by XYZ Inc., a wholly owned California subsidiary of a Japanese electronics company. He alleges he was denied a promotion because he was too old (72) for the position. His claim is within the scope of the ADEA.

20. Yancy was employed in Tokyo by RST-Japan KK, a wholly owned Japanese subsidiary of RST Inc., a California electronics company. He alleges he was denied a promotion because he was tool old (52) for the position. His claim is within the scope of the ADEA.

• This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour.
• The State Bar of California certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing minimum continuing legal education.