Total Articles: 9
TREATING “SIMILARLY-SITUATED” EMPLOYEES THE SAME
Most employers know that consistent application of internal policies and job standards can prevent discrimination and retaliation claims. This is particularly important because plaintiffs seeking to make such claims must establish that the employer treated “similarly-situated” persons outside their protected group more favorably.
Ninth Circuit Explains "BFOQ" Defense in Sex Discrimination Case
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex and other criteria. But there are some defenses to discrimination. One of these is the "BFOQ" or bona fide occupational qualification.
Insubordinate Worker Did Not Meet Employer's Legitimate Expectations.
A federal appellate court recently found that an employee who was fired for insubordination was not meeting an employer's legitimate business expectations after she engaged in arguments with her co-workers, the general manager, and the owner of the business. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further found that the insubordination was a non-discriminatory reason that overcame the employee's claim that her termination was a "pretext" for discrimination.
Physician's constructive discharge claim required only that a protected characteristic played a "motivating part" in hospital-employer's conduct.
It is generally understood that employees can bring claims for hostile environment, wrongful termination, or even constructive discharge where an employee claims that an employer made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. What is less clearly understood is the extent of the economic damages for which a hospital or health care system may be liable in an employment-related lawsuit. Because a successful litigant in an employment case often is entitled to compensatory damages, lost wages and, in some instances, front pay, a lawsuit by a physician-employee can create the potential for large monetary damage awards. In a clear example of this fact, a Texas jury recently awarded more than $3.6 Million to an Egyptian-born physician who claimed that he was forced to resign after race-based comments from another employed physician
"But For?" What For? Standards of Proof in Federal Discrimination Cases Confuse Courts, Jurors, and Lawyers.
The Supreme Courts recent decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., illustrates the often confusing and conflicting standards that apply when a plaintiff claims that an employment decision was discriminatory.
Jefferson County Worker's Bias Claim Fails (pdf).
Employer's explanation was not a pretext for discrimination.
No Heightened Evidentiary Burden Is Imposed In A Title VII Mixed-Motive Case.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the jury was properly instructed that it could find for the employee if it decided that her sex was a motivating factor for her termination, even if there were other lawful reasons for her termination.
Employer's Claim That Termination Was Due To Employees Damaging Airplane Prevails Over Employees Claim That Termination Was Based On Discrimination And Violation Of Public Policy.
Discusses Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2002), in which the court held that adding a reason for termination does not show pretext unless it were to conflict with a prior stated reason for the treatment.
SUPREME COURT RULES ON PRETEXT PLUS.
Discussion of Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., __ U.S. __, No. 99-536 (June 12, 2000), in which the court ruled that a jury may find for a plaintiff who establishes 1) a prima facie case of discrimination; and 2) that the employers proffered non-discriminatory reason for his discharge is false.
