A black technician alleged that two white employees were treated more favorably. The Eighth Circuit found that the white employees were not “similarly situated in all relevant respects,” and the case was dismissed.
After being held liable for discrimination against non-whites, a union was ordered to pay $2.6 million and $900,000 a year until further notice following back pay hearings. The Second Circuit found that district courts have broad discretion to fashion a remedy.
A prison employee of Filipino and Native American descent was subjected to anti-white slurs by an African-American employee. The employer argued that since discriminatory comments were not directed to Filipinos or Native Americans, the claim must fail. The Court disagreed, finding that the comments were directed at the employee. Further, the Court found that since employees in a prison need to trust their co-workers, the racial slurs interfered with the employee’s work.
An African American employee told a supervisor about race harassment by co-workers. The Seventh Circuit found that the supervisor’s investigation was not “textbook in its execution.” However, the supervisor’s action had “the purpose and effect of elimination of further race-based harassment.” Case dismissed.
An employee’s claim of race discrimination was dual filed with the EEOC and a city agency. The city agency closed the case after six years. A right-to-sue letter was issued by the EEOC. The Eighth Circuit barred the subsequent federal suit because of laches, finding that plaintiff’s delay in filing was unreasonable and inexcusable and that defendant was prejudiced by the delay.
A black police officer claimed discrimination after receiving two negative “counseling memos.” One memo was removed and the other memo would not impact the employees’ overall employment rating or pay increase. The Court wrote that the “loss of prestige or self-esteem felt by an employee who received what he believes to be unwarranted job criticism or performance review will rarely-without more-establish the adverse action necessary to pursue a claim under Title VII’s anti-discrimination clause.”
African American employees brought race claims alleging that a supervisor was rude, abrupt and arrogant. The court found that “Title VII does not guarantee a utopian workplace, or even a pleasant one.” The Seventh Circuit found that the behavior “fell far short” of creating a racially hostile work environment.
A white deputy sheriff alleged that he was fired because of his race. The Sheriff said he was fired for using excessive force when arresting an African American. The deputy sheriff claimed to be the victim of race-related politics. A jury found unlawful discrimination. The Fifth Circuit reversed finding that there was no evidence that the deputy sheriff’s race – as opposed to the alleged criminal’s race – was a motivating factor.
A black fire house captain had an altercation with a white subordinate. The captain was demoted, quit and sued, claiming as proof of pretext that the white employee was not disciplined. The 10th Circuit holds that since the two employees were not similarly situated, different treatment does not evidence pretext.
A consensual sexual relationship ends and the female employee receives her first negative evaluation. She then complained to Human Resources. Her sexual harassment case fails because she was harassed due to a failed relationship, not her gender. The retaliation claim fails because the negative evaluation came before the complaint to Human Resources.