In discrimination cases, employers can usually provide the courts with reasons for the punitive steps they took, such as poor performance, rule violations, or the like. Generally, the worker’s task will be to prove that the employer’s stated reason was disingenuous and that the employer was, at least in part, driven by discriminatory motives. Sometimes, though, the employer’s stated reason is itself bogus, such as claiming that it fired a worker for violating a rule that did not actually exist. What cases like this show is that advancing a discrimination case requires aggressively pursuing your positions -- and attacking those of your employer -- in all areas that the law defines as elements of a discrimination claim. To do that, you need powerful representation from a skilled New York employment discrimination lawyer.
A recent federal discrimination case from the Bronx illustrates how the legitimacy of an employer’s stated reason for acting may be the crux of the entire case.
N.K., a woman of Jamaican descent, worked in customer service for a chain of laundromats in the Bronx. Just a few months into the job, the employee’s supervisor began engaging in racial harassment. The supervisor told the woman that she was “too ‘hood’ and ‘ghetto’ to work for” the chain. In March, her new district lead joined the harassment, routinely making disparaging comments like telling her that she “looked like Aunt Jemima.”
A month later, the employee took $15 from the cash register as compensation for the taxi fare she had paid to get to work that day. According to N.K., the employer had a practice of paying workers’ taxi fares, and the district lead permitted workers to take money from the cash register if they left a receipt documenting the expense. Less than a week later, however, the employer fired N.K. over the cash removed from the register.
The employee sued based on discrimination and a hostile work environment. Earlier this month, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the woman had a viable case.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Requirements
In cases like N.K.’s, the law requires that a worker meet the elements outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision, McDonnell Douglas v. Green. That opinion placed the initial burden on workers who sue to prove that they had a “prima facie” case of discrimination. To have a prima facie case, N.K. needed to demonstrate that “(1) she belonged to a protected class, (2) she was qualified for her job, (3) she was fired, and (4) her firing took place ‘under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent.’”
Once the worker does that, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for its action. If the employer clears that hurdle, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the employer’s stated reason was really just a pretext for discrimination.
In many cases, including N.K.’s, the key to clearing the prima facie hurdle is the fourth and final piece, the “circumstances giving rise to an inference” of discrimination. In N.K.’s case, she alleged that one of her supervisors harassed her, making fun of the way she spoke and saying she “looked like Aunt Jemima.” Neither of her supervisors took any action against the employees who told N.K. she was “too hood” or “too ghetto” to work for that company, according to the lawsuit. Those assertions were enough to meet the “inference of discrimination” requirement.
As noted above, employers generally have an explanation to satisfy the “legitimate reason” requirement of the McDonnell Douglas test. However, N.K.’s lawsuit was not that sort of typical case. The laundromat fired her for taking money from the cash register -- funds that she used to cover the cost of a taxi ride to work. According to N.K., the employer allowed employees to take cash from the register to pay their taxi fare, as long as they left a receipt, which she did.
She also testified that her coworkers “engaged in this practice openly... with no discipline.” The court noted that if the woman ultimately proved those assertions to be true at trial, then the employer would have had no valid basis for demanding the return of the money and no legitimate reason for firing her when she failed to do so.
In reaching its conclusion, the appeals court noted that workers who sue are entitled to rely on their own testimony to demonstrate a valid issue of disputed fact, if that testimony comes from sources such as “sworn statements made in depositions or declarations under penalty of perjury.”
Success in an employment discrimination case involves a series of hurdles, each of which you must clear to get justice. When it’s time to tackle these challenges, don’t go it alone. Rely on the experienced New York City employment discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates PLLC to ensure that the case you present is the strongest one possible. To learn more about how we can help you, contact us online or call (866) 229-9441 to schedule a free and confidential consultation today.