News & Information

 

FEATURE PRODUCTS

U.S. Master™ Wage-Hour Guide, 2007 Edition
Presents a first approach to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), summarizing the basic legislation, demonstrating how the rules apply to particular employment situations, and exploring practical aspects of employment arrangements in light of the federal wage and hour law.

Learn More »

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW — 5/05/08

Usually irrelevant whether prima facie case is met in disparate treatment claims

Instructing that the question of whether a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment has made out a prima facie case of bias is almost always irrelevant at the summary judgment stage, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer on a demoted supervisor's race bias claim. The employer's asserted reason for demoting the supervisor was his violation of its sexual harassment policy by grabbing his crotch in front of a male and two female employees. "In a Title VII disparate-treatment suit where an employee has suffered an adverse employment action and an employer has asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the decision, the district court need not – and should not – decide whether the plaintiff actually made out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas," the court emphasized. Rather, when determining summary judgment, or judgment as a matter of law, under those circumstances, the one central question to resolve is whether the plaintiff offered enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find the employer's asserted nonbiased reason was not the real one, and that the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis race, color, sex, national origin or religion, instructed the court. (Brady v Office of the Sergeant At Arms, DCCir, 91 EPD ¶43,156)

In this case, the answer to that central question was "No." The supervisor offered insufficient evidence to show that his congressional employer's reason for demoting him was pretext for race bias. The decisionmaker testified that the supervisor was demoted due to his misconduct. Other evidence showed that two employees saw the incident and complained about it. A third witness, while initially reluctant, did not deny the employee grabbed his crotch. Further, the incident was thoroughly and independently investigated, and the supervisor's conduct violated his employer's sexual harassment policy. Since the supervisor offered no evidence that his employer did not honestly or reasonably believe the harassment incident took place, and his argument that his employer overreacted was untenable, the circuit court affirmed summary judgment for his employer.

For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.

Visit our News Library to read more news stories.