Fourth Circuit Holds That Employer’s Shifting Story Is Evidence Of Pretext

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
04/26/2019
To prevail in an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff is required to present evidence of pretext by his or her (former) employer.  What exactly does pretext mean, though, at a practical level? The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explored this concept in holding that a former trash truck driver was entitled to go to trial based on sufficient evidence that his former employer’s proffered reason for terminating him was a...
read more

When is Enough Harassment Investigation Enough?

Over my career, I have dealt with my share of “you can’t make this up” situations.  The kind where outrageously offensive or harassing workplace behavior has occurred, and the employer needs to – and wants to – figure out who did it and take steps to stop it from happening again. Indeed, that’s one of the benefits of representing management:  you can have the chance to assist in helping change culture (even if that “culture” appears...
read more

Louisiana Judge Holds That Jewish Heritage Can Be Basis For Race Discrimination Claim

Recently, a federal magistrate judge in Louisiana denied a motion to dismiss in a case in which the defendant is alleged to have refused to hire a football coach because of his “Jewish blood.”  Bonadona v. Louisiana College (W.D. La. July 13, 2018). The case involves Joshua Bonadona, the son of a Jewish mother and a Catholic father. Though Bonadona was raised in the Jewish religion, he converted to Christianity while attending Louisiana College...
read more

Target Finally Moving Out Of The Cross-Hairs Of Criminal History Hiring Discrimination Lawsuit

Target has quite the bill to pay.  As a result of alleged discriminatory hiring practices, premised upon Target's use of criminal background screening in a manner that had a disproportionate impact on minorities, Target Corp. will pay $3.74 million, and give priority hiring opportunities to black and Latino job applicants, to resolve claims that its criminal background check policy illegally excluded thousands of minority applicants from employment...
read more

When One Word Is Too Much... Single Racial Slur May Support Hostile Work Environment Claim

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
10/01/2017
In Castleberry v. STI Group, No. 16-3131 (3d Cir. 2017), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a manager's one-time use of a racial slur, combined with his threat to fire a Black employee, could be enough to support a Section 1981 hostile work environment claim. Two Black laborers sued their staffing agency (STI) and the client location where they were placed (Chesapeake Energy Group) based on their treatment at Chesapeake. They were not...
read more

Fourth Circuit Puts Employee’s Retaliation Claim Over A Barrel

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/13/2017
I enjoy the Cracker Barrel.  Their chicken and dumplings is almost as good as what my southern family cooked up when I was a child.  And, their sourdough French toast is wonderful, with or without a few of those small bottles of syrup.  Alas, this is not a food blog.  This post is about a recent decision affirming summary judgment against former Cracker Barrel employee Beatrice Lovett (African-American) on her Title VII and Section 1981...
read more

Former Chipotle Employee To Get Trial on Racial Harassment Claim

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
01/12/2017
An employer can avoid liability for one employee’s harassment of another employee if it takes prompt remedial action to address that harassment.  One way to do this is for an employer to conduct an investigation, counsel the involved employees, and/or discipline the harassing employee.  On the other hand, telling an employee who complains about racial harassment to “shut up, n***er” is not the right way to address harassment complaints....
read more

Officer’s Behavior Dooms Discrimination Claims

A recent decision from a D.C. federal court offers a reminder that employers who investigate workplace disputes and make employment decisions based on documented evidence put themselves in a better position to defeat lawsuits challenging those decisions.  Ladson v. George Wash. Univ., No. 14-cv-001586 (D.D.C. Sept. 1, 2016). Todd Ladson was a 24 year veteran of the George Washington University (GW) campus police when, in 2013, he was accused of...
read more

Delta Worker's Race Discrimination Claim Grounded by Appeals Court

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/23/2016
Most airline companies require their employees to do a final “walk around” the plane to assure everything is in order and doors are closed. Maahnchooh Ghogomu worked for Delta Airlines Global Services at the Tulsa International Airport until he forgot to do a final walk around Delta Flight 5188 and left the fuel-door panel open, which resulted in damages to the plane upon landing. Mr. Ghogomu accused Delta of racial discrimination with his...
read more

D.C Circuit Derails Discrimination Claim Brought by Engineer Who Ran Train Off the Tracks

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
09/23/2015
It was a victory for train giant Amtrak last week when the D.C. Circuit held that no reasonable jury could find Amtrak’s termination of a black engineer for failure to obey a stop signal was a pretext for race discrimination. (Burley v. Nat’l Passenger Rail Corp., D.C. Cir., No. 14-7051, 9/18/15). In this case, Plaintiff Burley operated a train that was forced off the track after it passed a blue stop signal. Passing a blue signal is considered a...
read more
Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Loading