In these slides, we will cover …
Can you be fired at any time, for any reason?
Can you be fired at any time, for any reason?
Courts have created a major exception to the employment-at-will rule by allowing the tort of wrongful discharge. Wrongful discharge means firing a worker for a bad reason. What is a bad reason? A bad reason can be
Richard Mudd, an employee of Compuserve, is called for jury duty in Wayne County, Michigan. His immediate supervisor, Harvey Lorie, lets him know that he “must” avoid jury duty at all costs. Mudd tells the judge of his circumstances and his need to be at work, but the judge refuses to let Mudd avoid jury duty. Mudd spends the next two weeks at trial. He sends regular e-mails and texts to Lorie during this time, but on the fourth day gets a text message from Lorie that says, “Don’t bother to come back.” When he does return, Lorie tells him he is fired. Does Mudd have a cause of action for the tort of wrongful discharge?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of:
Title VII applies to
Title VII established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate violations of the act. A victim of discrimination who wishes to file suit must first file a complaint with the EEOC to permit that agency to attempt conciliation of the dispute.
There are two types of claims: disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) and disparate impact (unintentional discrimination). We will cover disparate treatment first.
Who must prove what, and when
Plaintiff's initial burden:
Burden then shifts to employer to show a legitimate reason for the action, e.g.:
Burden then shifts to employer to show a legitimate reason for the action, e.g.:
Burden then shifts to plaintiff to show the employer's argument is pretextual
To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must allege:
Under both Title VII and the ADEA, once the plaintiff establishes its prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
Here, Defendant has provided ample evidence to support its claim that Plaintiff was terminated for unsatisfactory job performance. [E.g., marking equipment as fit to be rented when it was not in working order.] Defendant points to repeated warnings given to Plaintiff, both verbal and written, culminating in a final written warning that informed Plaintiff that an additional incident would result in discharge.
Once the employer has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff. Under Title VII, the plaintiff must produce evidence that the employer's stated reason is merely pretext to cover up unlawful discrimination.
Plaintiff does not provide evidence of discriminatory conduct, nor does he even allege, other than in conclusory fashion, that discriminatory conduct occurred; therefore, Plaintiff provides no evidence that Defendant's explanation was pretext or that discrimination was a motive for discharge.
In this racial discrimination case, ten black plaintiffs challenge the Boston Police Department's drug testing program. Seven of the plaintiffs are former officers fired by the department after testing positive for cocaine …. During the eight years for which the plaintiffs present data, black officers and cadets tested positive for cocaine approximately 1.3% of the time, while white officers and cadets tested positive just under 0.3% of the time.
The plaintiffs have proven beyond reasonable dispute a prima facie case of disparate impact under Title VII, while the department has proffered an uncontested legitimate need to identify those few of its members who use illegal drugs. What remains to be assessed by the district court is whether the department's drug testing program advances that goal and, if so, whether the plaintiffs can carry their burden of proving a failure to adopt an available alternative that meets the department's legitimate needs while reducing the disparate impact on black employees of the department.
Title VII defines religion as including religious observances and practices as well as belief and requires the employer to “reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice” unless the employer can demonstrate that a reasonable accommodation would work an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”
Greg Connolly is a member of the Church of God and believes that premarital sex and abortion are sinful. He works as a pharmacist for Wal-Mart, and at many times during the week, he is the only pharmacist available to fill prescriptions. One product sold at his Wal-Mart is the morning-after pill (RU 468). Based on his religious beliefs, he tells his employer that he will refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Must Wal-Mart make a reasonable accommodation to his religious beliefs?
Sexual harassment involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
There are two major categories of sexual harassment:
Olga Monge was a schoolteacher in her native Costa Rica. She moved to New Hampshire and attended college in the evenings to earn US teaching credentials. At night, she worked at the Beebe Rubber Company after caring for her husband and three children during the day. When she applied for a better job at the plant, the foreman offered to promote her if she would be “nice” and go out on a date with him. She refused, and he assigned her to a lower-wage job, took away her overtime, made her clean the washrooms, and generally ridiculed her. She finally collapsed at work, and he fired her. Does Monge have any cause of action?