Professional in Human Resources (PHR) Practice Exam

Disable ads (and more) with a membership for a one time $2.99 payment

Prepare for the Professional in Human Resources Exam with our comprehensive quiz. Enhance your HR skills with multiple choice questions, expert hints, and in-depth explanations. Ace your test with confidence!

Each practice test/flash card set has 50 randomly selected questions from a bank of over 500. You'll get a new set of questions each time!

Practice this question and more.


In the case of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, what significant distinction was made?

  1. Between sexual harassment and workplace bullying

  2. Between supervisor harassment with and without tangible employment action

  3. Between internal and external harassment

  4. Between juvenile and adult workplace misconduct

The correct answer is: Between supervisor harassment with and without tangible employment action

The case of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton is significant for clarifying the legal standards regarding workplace harassment, specifically the distinction made between supervisor harassment that results in tangible employment action and that which does not. This case established that if a supervisor creates a hostile work environment without taking tangible employment actions, the employer can still be held liable for the supervisor's conduct. This distinction is crucial because it helps determine the circumstances under which employers may be liable for harassment by employees in supervisory roles. It emphasizes the necessity for organizations to have effective policies and procedures in place to prevent and address harassment, thereby guiding HR practices and responsibilities concerning workplace conduct. The other options do not capture the core legal implications outlined by the court in this landmark case. While the topic of workplace bullying is relevant, Faragher specifically addresses the legal aspects of sexual harassment rather than a broader context of bullying. The concepts of internal versus external harassment and differing levels of misconduct based on age are not central issues within the ruling and therefore do not hold the same legal importance as the distinction regarding supervisor actions and employer liability.