GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Quiz

Ethics Crapola

Yuuki Minagawa 12 questions

Take the quiz

This quiz has question types that open in the usual player.

Questions in this quiz (12)

  1. 1During The Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke, Allan Bakke applied and was rejected to [blank_start]UC Davis Medical School[blank_end], due to their [blank_start]affirmative action program[blank_end]. As he was a white male, spots were reserved for minorities, and he sued for [blank_start]discrimination[blank_end]. The court ruled [blank_start]in his favour[blank_end], as the University could not show that he [blank_start]would have been rejected[blank_end] had the spots [blank_start]not been reserved[blank_end].
    1. AUC Davis Medical School
    2. Baffirmative action program
    3. Cdiscrimination
    4. Din his favour
    5. Ewould have been rejected
    6. Fnot been reserved
  2. 2In Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [blank_start]Mr. Christie[blank_end], an employee of the [blank_start]Dairy Pool[blank_end], sought leave without pay for [blank_start]Easter Monday[blank_end]. His employer refused, and he was [blank_start]terminated[blank_end] when he failed to show up for work. The court ruled that he was [blank_start]discriminated[blank_end] against because of [blank_start]religion[blank_end] and that the Dairy Pool had a [blank_start]duty to accommodate[blank_end].
    1. AMr. Christie
    2. BDairy Pool
    3. CEaster Monday
    4. Dterminated
    5. Ediscriminated
    6. Freligion
    7. Gduty to accommodate
  3. 3In the B.C. (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, a female [blank_start]firefighter[blank_end] (aged 33) who worked for the B.C. [blank_start]Ministry of Forests[blank_end] made a discrimination complaint. Her employer adopted [blank_start]new tests for physical fitness[blank_end]. She failed [blank_start]1[blank_end] out of the 4 tests by taking [blank_start]50 seconds longer[blank_end] than the required time, and was [blank_start]terminated[blank_end]. The court ruled this was [blank_start]gender discrimination[blank_end] and that there would [blank_start]not be undue hardship[blank_end] to the employer if a different standard was used.
    1. Afirefighter
    2. BMinistry of Forests
    3. Cnew tests for physical fitness
    4. D1
    5. E50 seconds longer
    6. Fterminated
    7. Ggender discrimination
    8. Hnot be undue hardship
  4. 4In Wallace v. United Grain Growers, Supreme Court of Canada, Wallace, a 59-year-old man, was a [blank_start]marketing manager[blank_end] who had been employed for [blank_start]14[blank_end] years. He was terminated [blank_start]suddenly[blank_end] and [blank_start]without explanation[blank_end]. He sued for [blank_start]wrongful dismissal[blank_end]. His employer rebutted, but later abandoned their rebuttal in court. The court awarded [blank_start]14[blank_end] months for reasonable notice, and an additional [blank_start]10[blank_end] for bad faith conduct in dismissal due to [blank_start]trauma[blank_end].
    1. Amarketing manager
    2. B14
    3. Csuddenly
    4. Dwithout explanation
    5. Ewrongful dismissal
    6. F14
    7. G10
    8. Htrauma
  5. 5In Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, Keays began working for Honda in 1986. In 1996, he began [blank_start]receiving disability[blank_end]. After 2 years, Honda stopped paying for Keays' disability and claimed there was [blank_start]no objective evidence[blank_end]. Keays refused to bring a [blank_start]doctor's note[blank_end] or to see an [blank_start]independent medical specialist[blank_end], and was terminated for [blank_start]insubordination[blank_end]. The court ruled this a [blank_start]wrongful dismissal[blank_end] and awarded [blank_start]15[blank_end] month's salary. There was no [blank_start]Wallace[blank_end] bump.
    1. Areceiving disability
    2. Bno objective evidence
    3. Cdoctor's note
    4. Dindependent medical specialist
    5. Einsubordination
    6. Fwrongful dismissal
    7. G15
    8. HWallace
  6. 6In Farber v. Royal Trust co. Farber was a [blank_start]senior manager[blank_end] who had worked at Royal Trust, a [blank_start]real estate company[blank_end] in [blank_start]Quebec[blank_end] for [blank_start]18[blank_end] years. His base salary was low, but with [blank_start]commission and benefits[blank_end] it was substantially more. He was relocated to a less busy office, and his company proposed to [blank_start]eliminate[blank_end] his base salary. He refused to move, quit, and sued for [blank_start]constructive dismissal[blank_end]. The court ruled that this was indeed [blank_start]constructive dismissal[blank_end] and awarded 1 year's pay.
    1. Asenior manager
    2. Breal estate company
    3. CQuebec
    4. D18
    5. Ecommission and benefits
    6. Feliminate
    7. Gconstructive dismissal
    8. Hconstructive dismissal
  7. 7American company Union Carbide had a plant in [blank_start]Bhopal[blank_end], India, which was co-owned by the [blank_start]Indian Government[blank_end]. The plant produced [blank_start]pesticides[blank_end]. On December 3rd, [blank_start]1984[blank_end], there was a [blank_start]gas leak[blank_end] and an [blank_start]explosion[blank_end] caused by a [blank_start]boiling[blank_end] effect in the tank, and the back-up safety system [blank_start]failed[blank_end]. The smoke escaped, and 3500 people [blank_start]died[blank_end] and 200,000 were [blank_start]injured[blank_end] as a result. All litigation was [blank_start]transferred to India[blank_end], and the Indian government received a $470 M [blank_start]settlement[blank_end] from Union Carbide, with individual victims receiving payouts in the [blank_start]thousands[blank_end].
    1. ABhopal
    2. BIndian Government
    3. Cpesticides
    4. D1984
    5. Egas leak
    6. Ffailed
    7. Gdied
    8. Hinjured
    9. Itransferred to India
    10. Jsettlement
    11. Kthousands
    12. Lboiling
    13. Mexplosion
  8. 8Exxon Valdez, an [blank_start]oil tanker[blank_end], hit a reef off [blank_start]Alaska[blank_end] in [blank_start]1989[blank_end]. This resulted in a massive [blank_start]oil spill[blank_end] of 10.8 million gallons and caused damage to [blank_start]wildlife[blank_end] and the [blank_start]coast[blank_end]. The reef was a [blank_start]known hazard[blank_end]. The [blank_start]captain[blank_end], the only person licensed to navigate, had [blank_start]alcoholism[blank_end] and left the tanker [blank_start]on autopilot[blank_end]. There was also supposed to be [blank_start]two officers[blank_end] on the bridge, but actually there was only one, on [blank_start]overtime[blank_end]. A 1994 jury awarded $287 million in [blank_start]damages[blank_end] and $5 billion in [blank_start]punitive[blank_end], but this was later reduced in 2008 by the [blank_start]U.S. Supreme Court[blank_end].
    1. Aoil tanker
    2. BAlaska
    3. C1989
    4. Doil spill
    5. Ewildlife
    6. Fcoast
    7. Gknown hazard
    8. Hcaptain
    9. Ialcoholism
    10. Jon autopilot
    11. Ktwo officers
    12. Lovertime
    13. Mdamages
    14. Npunitive
    15. OU.S. Supreme Court
  9. 9The [blank_start]Deepwater Horizon[blank_end] was an oil rig owned by [blank_start]BP[blank_end] and located off the [blank_start]Louisiana[blank_end] shore. On April 20th, [blank_start]2010[blank_end], it [blank_start]exploded[blank_end] and caught on fire, as the rig was [blank_start]damaged[blank_end]. 11 people were killed and 17 injured, and [blank_start]173[blank_end] M gallons of oil spilled out into the [blank_start]Gulf of Mexico[blank_end]. BP was found guilty of [blank_start]gross negligence[blank_end] and set up a $20 M fund for compensation.
    1. ADeepwater Horizon
    2. BBP
    3. CLouisiana
    4. D2010
    5. Eexploded
    6. Fdamaged
    7. GGulf of Mexico
    8. H173
    9. Igross negligence
  10. 10In the Merek & Co. Vioxx case, Merek & Co. had a past record of [blank_start]social conscientiousness[blank_end]. They had given free drugs for [blank_start]river blindness[blank_end]. The Vioxx drug was used as a [blank_start]painkiller[blank_end], particularly for [blank_start]arthritis[blank_end], from 1999-2004. In 2001, the [blank_start]Cleveland[blank_end] study appeared, which showed that Vioxx users had 5x greater risk of [blank_start]heart attack[blank_end] than competing painkiller brand [blank_start]Aleve[blank_end]. Merek denied these allegations. Merek had paid [blank_start]ghost writers[blank_end] for [blank_start]research reports[blank_end] and clinical trials.
    1. Asocial conscientiousness
    2. Briver blindness
    3. Cpainkiller
    4. Darthritis
    5. ECleveland
    6. Fheart attack
    7. GAleve
    8. Hghost writers
    9. Iresearch reports

Information

Description
Heck
Language
English
Views
20
Rating
No ratings yet
Rate this quiz
Rate this quiz

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?