Judge rules against employer
Date | 01 March 2019 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30571 |
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 nonprots. Nonprots 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 unspecied “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 signicant 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 benets,
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 signicant
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 Ofce.
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 qualied 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 identied 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 satised by establishing that she had
To continue reading
Request your trial