Former employee's suit dismissed
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30614 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR JUNE 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 nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review
employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.
Gender discrimination
Former employee’s suit dismissed
In July 2016, the plaintiff—a Goodwill store
manager—reported to the district ofce that a white
female employee had been talking on her cellphone
when she was supposed to be working.
A few days later, a different female employee ac-
cused him of harassment and incompetence.
The plaintiff was red after Goodwill conducted
an investigation, and he led a suit claiming gender
discrimination.
The plaintiff rst alleged that the charges were false.
He also claimed the accuser’s motive was revenge be-
cause she was a friend of the worker he had reported.
He also alleged that the Goodwill investigation
had been biased. According to the plaintiff, he was
never: (1) advised of his rights, (2) informed about
any of the specic charges, (3) interviewed about the
complaint and (4) allowed to appeal.
Finally, the plaintiff claimed four female employees
had been treated more favorably.
He alleged that: (1) one had lied to the district
manager, and had a history of “setting up” other
employees to be red; (2) Goodwill had investigated
another for harassment; (3) the third had been run-
ning a theft ring inside the store but had voluntarily
quit before Goodwill learned about it; and (4) the
fourth hadn’t been disciplined after failing to properly
clean up blood and sewage.
The district court judge said a plaintiff claiming
discrimination in the enforcement of employee dis-
ciplinary measures must allege: (1) he is a member
of a class protected by Title VII, (2) his alleged mis-
conduct was comparable in seriousness to misconduct
of employees outside the protected class and (3) the
disciplinary measures imposed against him were
more severe than those enforced against the other
employees that were similarly situated.
EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The judge said the com-
plaint contained no plausible facts showing that
Goodwill was biased against the plaintiff based on his
gender in conducting the investigation. He explained
that merely labeling the inquiry as “biased” wasn’t
sufcient, and facts had to be alleged that supported
the conclusion.
The judge also ruled that none of the examples
cited by the plaintiff were relevant for several reasons.
He explained there were no allegations about how
that rst employee’s alleged misconduct was similarly
severe to the plaintiff’s, what employees were “set up”
and what disciplinary action was taken against her.
He next said there were no allegations concerning any
discipline the second employee had received.
The judge said the plaintiff’s own complaint
showed that Goodwill didn’t know anything about
the theft ring when it had an opportunity to take
disciplinary action against her because she quit before
Goodwill heard about it. Finally, the judge said the
alleged misconduct of the fourth employee wasn’t
as serious as what the plaintiff had been accused of.
The judge dismissed the complaint but allowed the
plaintiff a chance to amend.
[Brown v. Goodwill Industries of Eastern North Car-
olina Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina, No. 4:17-CV-144, 01/02/2019].
Title VII
Employee retaliation suit to go forward
In January 2014, the plaintiff, a black woman,
became a manager at the Federal Reserve Board of
Governors.
In October 2015, she unsuccessfully complained to
her supervisor that an assistant director and two of
his subordinates were harassing her because of racial
and gender discrimination.
Less than a month later, that supervisor excluded
her from an advisory group.
In December, she complained to her supervisor
that (1) the assistant director had yelled at her and
(2) she had been excluded from a meeting.
The supervisor then allegedly removed the plaintiff
from a project she had been overseeing.
The plaintiff led a suit that asserted a hostile work
environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
In support of her hostile work environment claim,
the plaintiff alleged that the assistant director and his
subordinates yelled at her and undermined her work
performance. With respect to her retaliation claim, the
plaintiff alleged that some of her responsibilities were
eliminated because of the complaints she had made.
The defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial