Employee fails to support her allegations with facts

• Date: 01 March 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30570
• Published date: 01 March 2019

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR MARCH 2019

10 © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Employment Law

Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review

employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.

Title VII

Employee fails to support her allegations

with facts

The plaintiff, whose national origin was Iranian,

became an information technology specialist with the

Department of Homeland Security in 1989.

In 1998, she led a formal complaint that stated that

a co-worker was directing unspecied “harassment”

toward her. Although the plaintiff was removed from

that co-worker’s team a few months later, the two

women continued to work in the same building.

In February 2014, both employees were arrested

after being involved in a physical altercation with

each other.

In May, a manager inquired of the plaintiff, who

was a property custodian, about missing government

property. After the plaintiff responded that she had

located the assets, a branch chief claimed two items

were still missing.

During that month, the plaintiff received her 2014

midyear performance evaluation. For the element of

“teamwork, cooperation, and collaboration,” it stated

that there was signicant room for improvement, not-

ing her physical altercation with another employee.

In October, the plaintiff was suspended for ve

days because of the February incident even though

she claimed that the co-worker was the aggressor.

The suspension letter stated that the penalty was for

“conduct unbecoming an agency employee” by being

“involved in a physical altercation.”

The plaintiff led a suit claiming national origin

discrimination in violation of Title VII, which result-

ed in: (1) the suspension, (2) a negative performance

appraisal, and (3) being accused of “inappropriate

accounting.” With respect to the suspension, the

plaintiff alleged that “management had never disci-

plined an employee who was not Iranian . . . for being

physically attacked by a coworker.”

The defendant filed a motion for summary

judgment.

The district court judge said a plaintiff claim-

ing discrimination must show she had suffered an

“adverse employment” action. He then ruled that

the performance evaluation and the accusation

were not “adverse employment actions” under the

statute because there was no change in her benets,

responsibilities or job title.

The judge agreed that the suspension was an ad-

verse action and said the issue with respect to that

action was whether a reasonable jury could nd that

it resulted from discrimination.

The judge ruled that the physical altercation cited

by the defendant was a legitimate reason for the sus-

pension and said his job was to decide whether the

plaintiff had produced evidence that cast signicant

doubt on the veracity of that stated reason.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge ruled that the

plaintiff hadn’t discredited the department’s stated rea-

son. He explained that she had not produced anything

to support the claim about Iranians being punished,

and noted that the co-worker in the altercation—who

was similarly suspended—was not Iranian.

Because there was no evidence that the suspension

resulted from anything other than the ght with a co-

worker, the judge concluded that no reasonable jury

could nd that the plaintiff had been discriminated

against in violation of Title VII.

[Dreiband v. Nielsen, U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, No. 17-891, 08/03/2018].

Gender discrimination

Judge rules against employer

In 2015, the plaintiff became a sergeant in the

Criminal Investigation Division of the Cooke County

Sheriff’s Ofce.

After being terminated in 2016, she led a suit claim-

ing her male co-workers were treated more favorably.

The county led a motion for summary judgment.

The district court judge said the plaintiff was ini-

tially required to prove: (1) she was a member of a

protected group, (2) she was qualied for the position,

(3) an adverse employment action occurred and (4)

she was treated less favorably than similarly situated

employees under nearly identical circumstances.

The county conceded that the plaintiff had estab-

lished the rst three parts of her burden, but argued

that she hadn’t identied a similarly situated male

employee who was treated more favorably.

The plaintiff argued that she met her initial burden

because her replacement was a male.

The judge said the fourth prong of her burden

could also be satised by establishing that she had