M E M O R A N D U M
TO: ABC Corporation
SUBJECT: Employment Law – Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
DATE: May 10, 2015
Will Samuel prevail in a lawsuit against ABC Corporation (ABC) for racial discrimination and retaliation?
Short Legal Answer
No, Samuel will not prevail in his Racial Discrimination and Retaliation lawsuit against ABC because the actions of ABC did not fall within the statutory definition of Disparate-impact discrimination.
Facts of the Claim
Samuel is African-American who has worked for ABC for three years. All of Samuel’s performance evaluations have been good. He applied for several positions in other departments and was ...view middle of the document...
The court found that “the firm offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the disparity” (Rudolph).
In the case of Baldwin v Cablevision Systems Corp, the employee claimed that he was discriminated against when his employer passed over him three times vice president positions for which he felt he was qualified. He was later terminated, which he stated was retaliation for complaining. The employer was able to provide facts that demonstrated their hiring decisions were race-neutral. They also provided legitimated reasoning for the plaintiff’s firing. The appellate court found for Cablevision, stating that they were not being racially discriminatory.
When looking at the appellate case, Moultrie v Penn Aluminum International, Moultrie, which was quite lengthy, the plaintiff claims Penn Aluminum discriminated against him on the basis of his race. He also claims that when he made a complaint about it, he was written up for filing the complaint, which he says was retaliation. In February 2009, Penn Aluminum reassigned Moultrie new duties. Moultrie states the reassignment was a violation of the seniority system. Moultrie was not able to prove a prima facie case or retaliation. “…his on-the-job performance was inadequate, and he failed to point to similarly situated employees who received more favorable treatment” (Moultrie).
The Rose III v. Plastikon Ind., case shows that plaintiff Rose filed for Title VII action against Plaskiton Ind., for racial discrimination. Rose’s position was that of Loader. He was fired on February 26, 2009. Plastikon stated they fired Rose for verbally threatening his supervisor, Neel Prasad. Before Rose was fired, he made a complaint with the human resources department against Neel Prasad for harassment and discrimination. The human resources department investigated the claims, but did not find anything to substantiate them. Rose filed a Charge of Discrimination in September of 2009 with the EEOC. The EEOC was not able to prove discrimination and subsequently closed its investigation in July 2010.
Price v Federal Express Corp was a case where the plaintiff claims that he was denied a promotion in favor of a white applicant. The plaintiff did prove a prima facie case. However, Federal Express Corp was able to provide legitimate information supporting their information; the white applicant had more education and fifteen years in the military in similar positions, which was more education and experience than what Price had obtained. The courts found for the Defendant.
All of these cases demonstrate that while an African-American felt their rights were infringed upon, the evidence did not support illegal or fraudulent behavior. In most cases, it was simply the employee not having all of the facts.
Applicable statutes to the case are “Equal Protection Clause,” “Disparate Treatment Discrimination – Prima facie,” and, “Retaliation”.
Regarding the Equal Protection Clause, ABC will need to...