Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Race Discrimination Cases: 49
The city of Chicago put in place a process through which it hired city fire fighters. Initially, all applicants took a written test. For those who scored in the “well qualified” range on that test, the city randomly selected a group to proceed to the second stage of the interview process. Those who scored under a certain number on the test were dropped from consideration. Those who scored between that bottom cut-off score and the “well qualified” score were noted to be “qualified.” Those applicants were placed on a list that made them eligible to be called to the second stage of the process in future years if there were not enough “well qualified” applicants. A group of African American applicants filed a suit (which became a class action) against the city, alleging that this process had a disparate impact on black applicants. The district court ruled for the applicants, ruling that the city had to select 132 class members to hire and that it had to provide back pay to the rest. The Seventh Circuit reversed that decision, holding that the suit was untimely because the applicants failed to file EEOC charges within 300 days after the discriminatory act (the creation of applicant tiers) took place. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the “discriminatory act” actually took placed each time the tier system was utilized in the hiring process and that a suit challenging such an application is timely so long as it meets each element of a disparate impact claim.
Read More
An African-American employee brought a Title VII action against her employer, alleging that she was denied nine separate promotions due to her race or for retaliatory reason. A jury found for the employee and awarded her back pay on the basis of each of the nine promotions. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that only three of the nine alleged violations were supported by substantial evidence. Although the jury was entitled to reject the employer’s proffered reason for denying the employee three of the promotions, there was insufficient evidence of racial discrimination or retaliation with respect to the other six
promotions. The case was remanded for recalculation of back pay, since the initial award was cumulative for all nine promotions.
Read More
The CEO of DeKalb County, Georgia began instituting a plan to replace all of the county’s white county managers with African-American ones. White city managers, and one African-American one who refused to go along with this plan, alleged that they began to experience discrimination and hostility in the work place in an effort to force them into resigning. Some also had their positions eliminated or were reassigned to essentially menial positions. Several of these managers filed a complaint against the CEO, his executive assistant, and others alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and other violations of their rights. The defendants all argued that they had qualified immunity for their actions, and the executive assistant argued that he had legislative immunity. The trial judge rejected all claims of immunity. On appeal, the Court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. It held that the defendants engaged in harassing behavior and that the plaintiffs had the right to be free of such discrimination, among other things. The legislative immunity denial was reversed, however. The executive assistant drafted a proposed budget which eliminated a plaintiff’s position, and the Court held this to be a legislative action entitled to absolute immunity.
Read More
Plaintiff brought suit against his employer alleging discrimination on the basis of his race in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff, a deputy sheriff was given a work assignment which required him to patrol military housing between the hours of 11:00 p.m and 7:00 a.m. While on duty, plaintiff left his post, covered his uniform with civilian clothing and dropped his personal vehicle off with a friend. While driving his personal vehicle to meet a friend, the plaintiff was stopped for a routine traffic stop by Deputy Locke. During the stop, plaintiff was argumentative and accused Deputy Locke for stopping him for
Read More
. Plaintiff brought discrimination and retaliation claims against defendant employer, alleging that the employer violated plaintiff
Read More
Plaintiff Johnson challenged the termination of his employment at a grocery store. Plaintiff repeatedly ate food from the store
Read More
Gillis v. GA Dep
18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C235a (11th Cir. February 18, 2005)
2005-02-18
RACE DISCRIMINATION
An African-American employee was given an annual review that lessened the percentage of raise she could have received if her review was rated higher, and she filed charges of racial discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
Read More
The plaintiff filed a claim with the EEOC for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Federal Civil Rights Act, for failure to promote and termination after he was laid off. Subsequently, the plaintiff was offered his job back after several others quit, but he chose to take employment elsewhere. The plaintiff received a right-to sue letter, but failed to file suit until one year after the letter was issued. The court determined that the Title VII claims were time barred and that the continuing violation doctrine could not be used to extend the filing time for an EEOC charge. The court also determined that the plaintiff did not establish his prima facie case for failure to promote or retaliation because he was recalled to employment; therefore, no adverse employment action took place. Summary judgment was granted to the employer.
Read More
Seven African-Americans filed suit against Southern Co. and several of its subsidiaries alleging racial discrimination. The district court denied the class certification and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff
Read More
Chappell v. Chao
17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1185a (11th Cir. October 28, 2004)
2004-10-28
RACE DISCRIMINATION
The appellant (a federal employee) filed several charges for race and age discrimination and retaliation for filing on his own behalf and for filing affidavits on behalf of others. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The 11th Circuit affirmed because the federal statutes require federal employees to either combine the related employment and termination discrimination claims and pursue them in federal district court, or to appeal the termination claim to the Federal Circuit and waive the discrimination claims. Because the appellant chose to appeal to the Federal Circuit, which dismissed his claim, and because the termination claims were based on the same facts, the judgment was affirmed.
Read More
The appellant (a police officer) was investigated for violating police policy and terminated. Although he appealed the decision through the arbitration, when it was affirmed, he filed charges with the EEOC for disparate treatment discrimination. Summary judgment was granted because the court distinguished the appellants actions from the similarly situated comparators that he offered for evidence; therefore, his prima facie case failed; In addition, even if the court assumed that the appellant met his prima facie burden, he did not put forth any evidence to prove that the proffered reasons for termination were pretextual.
Read More
The issue on appeal is whether the EEOC is barred from bringing a claim of discrimination when a separate action has rendered an adverse judgment. The Court held that the EEOC is not barred especially when the EEOC was denied the opportunity to join the earlier suit and the EEOC suit contained individuals not represented in the earlier private cause of action. The Court determined that in order for the EEOC to be bound by the private suit, the EEOC must have been in privity with the private plaintiffs. The Court determined that EEOC was not bound under the virtual representation theory or the control theory. Under virtual representation, the EEOC must have participated, had a close relationship, or consented to be bound by the judgment. Under the control theory, the EEOC must have controlled the private parties litigation. Furthermore, the Court noted that it is rare to have an agency bound by a private suit because agencies have statutory duties that are much broader than private litigants.
Read More
The action on appeal was the request for rehearing en banc. The appellee
Read More
Reynolds v. McInnes
17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C926a (11th Cir. August 10, 2004)
2004-08-10
RACE DISCRIMINATION
In 1994, a consent decree for reclassification of jobs was ordered in this case which included the original plaintiffs and a group of interveners. The District Court referred a contempt motion to a special master filed by the interveners which required the appellee to comply with the decree. At issue in the appeal is whether the interveners had standing to enforce the consent decree. The 11th Circuit affirmed the district court holding there was no error in the district court
Read More
Bonilla v. Potter
17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D817a (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2004)
2004-07-12
RACE DISCRIMINATION
A misunderstanding ensued between Bonilla and another postal employee which included the shouting of obscenities. The supervisor took Bonilla into his office. After Bonilla calmed down, he left the post office to continue his job as a mail carrier. When he returned later in the afternoon, he approached the person with whom he had the earlier confrontation, screamed obscenities, bald up his fist and asked the other employee if he wanted to
Read More
Plaintiffs were parties to an original suit against Bellsouth that was settled. Because the plaintiff
Read More
Plaintiff Harrington sued her employer under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act for race discrimination and retaliation. In her first charge with the EEOC, Plaintiff alleged five separate bases for racial discrimination against CPC: a denial of promotion to North Dade Unit Director; exclusion from certain meetings; change of status to "exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act; denial of request for a cellular phone and denial of a pay raise. Plaintiff later filed a second charge with the EEOC alleging retaliation because certain programs were taken away from her; her title was changed; and she was made to fill out time sheets. Defendant filed for summary judgment. In a direct evidence case, if the plaintiff makes a showing of direct evidence of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that it would have made the same decision anyway absent the discriminatory motive. Plaintiff's only direct evidence was a comment allegedly made by a former Director of Human Resources. The court found this comment was inadmissible hearsay evidence under Zaber v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 129 F.3d 1453, 1455 (11th Cir. 1997). In a circumstantial evidence case, the McDonnell Douglas analysis controls. The court held that plaintiff had established her prima facie case regarding the denial of promotion. The burden then shifted to CPC to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its failure to promote plaintiff. The court found that CPC met this burden by demonstrating that Lentin, the white female ultimately hired for the Dade Unit Director position, was more qualified than Plaintiff. The court further found that plaintiff was unable to show that CPC's proffered reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination. In a failure to promote case, the plaintiff must meet her burden in proving pretext by showing he or she was substantially more qualified than the person promoted. The disparity in qualifications must be one that "jumps off the page and slaps you in the face." Here, a comparison of plaintiff's qualifications with those of Lentin showed that Lentin's managerial responsibilities and clinical qualifications were greater than those of plaintiff. As for plaintiff's remaining claims for discrimination in terms and conditions of employment, the court found that plaintiff failed to meet her evidentiary burden because she could not establish that she had the requisite experience to warrant attendance at certain meetings; she could not demonstrate that her reclassification under the FLSA had anything to do with race; she did not formally request a cellular phone from CPC and not all employees were provided with cellular phones by the company. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.
The court also granted summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim. In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show (1) that she engaged in a protected activity; (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action and (3) that a causal connection exists between the two. The court found that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against because she made internal complaints regarding her exclusion from meetings. However, the protected activity may not include internal complaints. Also, an adverse employment action must be a serious and material change in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Plaintiff's salary, title and benefits were not altered in any way.
Read More
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging he was demoted, subjected to a hostile work environment and ultimately fired because of his race and national origin. The plaintiff also alleged retaliation in violation of Title VII. The court found that plaintiff established he was a member of a protected class and that he suffered adverse job actions when defendant dismissed him from one position and then terminated him from another. The court found that the plaintiff had not established, however, that similarly situated non-minority employees were treated differently. The evidence showed that the plaintiff refused to perform assigned work, left work without authorization, lost his temper in the workplace and shouted at his supervisors. Plaintiff had not alleged that any other employee behaved similarly yet remained employed. Plaintiff therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The plaintiff
Read More
Plaintiff, an African-American male filed suit pursuant to Title VII of Civil Rights Act against his former employer alleging that his resignation constituted constructive discharge because it was compelled by employer's intolerable, racially discriminatory conduct. Viewing the facts in light most favorable to plaintiff, summary judgment should have been entered in favor of defendants on claim that defendant engaged in racial discrimination in violation of Title VII where reasonable jury could not have found that working conditions endured by plaintiff were so intolerable as to compel reasonable person to resign. The alleged conduct consisted of giving plaintiff a reprimand for not attending a golf outing, which was subsequently withdrawn; cartoons which were attached to plaintiff's office computer and contained a character that had been darkened by pen or pencil, but were not condoned by employer; offering to transfer plaintiff to another managerial role; statements of supervisors that employer planned to fire plaintiff due to his race (which plaintiff concedes were not supposed to be revealed to him); and baseless claim of unequal pay. The court found these actions did not amount to intolerable working conditions sufficient to constitute constructive discharge and affirmed the summary judgment entered in favor of the employer.
Read More
Brown v. Sybase, Inc.
17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D143b (S.D. Fla. September 23, 2003)
2003-09-23
RACE DISCRIMINATION
An African-American employee brought suit against his former employer alleging race discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under the Florida Civil Rights Act. On the employer's motion for summary judgment, the District Court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework. The court found that the supervisor's failure to provide good sales leads to employee, supervisor's delay in informing employee that his territory had changed, and employee's placement on performance improvement plan did not constitute a "tangible adverse effect," so as to support a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII. Under the second and third steps of the analysis, the Court found that the employee's poor performance and failure to meet requirements of the performance improvement plan were legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for employee's termination, and such reasons were not pretexts for race discrimination or retaliation. As for plaintiff's claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act, the court held that even if the court found a causal connection between plaintiff's complaint to his supervisor of a racial comment and his termination four months later, there was insufficient evidence of pretext. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.
Read More
The plaintiff, an African American male, brought suit against the county alleging violations of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act for failing to promote him because of his race. The plaintiff claimed that he had direct evidence of discrimination as he contended that the employer had a policy of attempting to match African-American regional manager candidates with regions that had a largely African-American population. The plaintiff submitted evidence which established only that it was
Read More
Defendant employed Plaintiff, an African American nurse, from 1988-1994 and again in 1997 after returning from an educational leave of absence. Before returning in 1997, Plaintiff worked for another hospital because there were no job openings with Defendant. Upon returning, Plaintiff
Read More
HINES v. WIDNALL
16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C780a (11th Circuit, June 27, 2003)
2003-06-27
RACE DISCRIMINATION
The plaintiffs were 5 African-American civilian employees at Eglin Air Force Base. They were attempting to file a class action suit against Eglin for race discrimination. Two were applicants, and three were current employees. Eglin used a centralized personnel ratings system based on algorithmic formulas that assigned weights to such factors as qualifications and past performance. The district court entered summary judgment for Eglin against the two applicants on the grounds they did not exhaust their available administrative remedies. The three current employees had reached settlement agreements with Eglin, and the district court dismissed their claims.
The appellate court affirmed with regard to the applicants but stated the three current employees could still have standing to appeal the denial of class certification even though they had settled their individual claims against Eglin. The district court ruled the three employees did not adequately represent the spectrum of jobs and divisions at Eglin because the class was too broad; therefore, they did not meet the requirements of class certification under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court of appeals determined this was within the court
Read More
Knight, an African-American female, began working at Baptist as a clinical nurse in 1996. Baptist
Read More
Plaintiff failed to show direct discrimination when he claimed that persons not connected with the adverse employment decision (to terminate plaintiff) uttered racial epithets. In attempting to show indirect evidence, the plaintiff failed when he lacked personal competence to testify regarding disciplinary action that might have taken place with respect to his coworkers (alleged drinking on the job and mis-diagnosis of a bus mechanical problem). With respect to these coworkers, the plaintiff also failed to show that the alleged comparators were outside the protected class of which plaintiff is a member. Plaintiff also failed to rebuff the defendant employer
Read More
The plaintiff was a long time administrator with Talladega County and was passed over for promotion to Superintendent. The plaintiff brought a Title VII race discrimination claim. The court found no evidence that the improper consideration of race played a role in the decision to hire someone other than the plaintiff. The Court stated that the disparities between the candidates for the Superintendent position were not so apparent as to
Read More
Adecco is a temporary employee placement service, who had a contract with the School Board. The Board had the right to terminate temporary employees Adecco provided to them. Plaintiffs, who were temporary employees, were instructed by the School to wear Santa hats during the Christmas holiday and they refused, arguing their religious beliefs prohibited it. An agreement was reached for the employees to wear red baseball caps instead. The following day, Plaintiffs claim they received a phone call from Adecco telling them not to go into work. Adecco denies making the call and the School denies firing them. Plaintiffs allege religious and racial discrimination under Title VII. Plaintiffs urge Adecco wasliable under the joint employer theory of agency. The court adopted the reasoning of Williams v. Caruso, 966 F. Supp. 287 (D. Del. 1997) and held that Adecco, as a temporary employment agency exercising no control over Plaintiff
Read More
The plaintiff brought this action against the City of Tallahassee for alleged racial discrimination, including claims that he had received lower merit pay increases than similarly situated white employees. In examining the case, the court noted that all claims that had not been filed within 300 days of the alleged discrimination were time barred and that summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate as to those claims. The continuing violation doctrine did not toll the 300 day period because each pay increase was a discrete act giving rise to separate disparate impact claims needing to be filed within the 300 day period. The defendant employer was entitled to summary judgment where the plaintiff had only provided conclusory, self-serving assertions that he had been discriminated against, and where the defendant had produced ample evidence to suggest that during the charge-filing period the plaintiff had not receive lower raises on the basis of race.
Read More
Hill v. White
16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. c360a
2003-02-19
RACE DISCRIMINATION
The civilian plaintiff employed at a federal defense installation brought a race discrimination claim with respect to the initiation of a security clearance investigation. The appellate court found that the suit was properly dismissed where the United States Supreme Court had announced in no uncertain terms that decisions concerning the issuance of security clearance is a matter not open to second-guessing by the judiciary absent specific congressional provisions.
Read More
Plaintiff is an African-American pharmacist who was employed by the defendant at a hospital pharmacy. He was involved in an altercation with a supervisor, was terminated and subsequently filed a Title VII action. The court assumed that the plaintiff had met his prima facie burden. However, the plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence that the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination was pretextual (terminated for aggressive behavior and insubordination). The court notes that the heart of the pretext inquiry is not whether the employee agrees with the reasons that the employer gives for the discharge, but whether the employer really was motivated by those reasons. Plaintiff offered no evidence to meet his burden in showing pretext. Summary judgment granted for the employer.
Read More
Plaintiff was employed with the University of Florida Tissue Bank and alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the positions that she applied for were not
Read More
The plaintiff filed claims against her employer for race discrimination under Title VII, the Florida Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C.
Read More
Plaintiff was an African American female. She asserted that she had been passed up for promotion on the basis of her race despite her experience with Blue Cross Blue Shield. She also asserted that her supervisor was purposefully directing assignments to other employees thereby denying her opportunities to earn credits toward promotion. A complaint was filed under the Florida Civil Rights Act jointly with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. More than (300) days after filing the complaint the plaintiff requested a right to sue letter. The EEOC responded that it was unable to conclude that there had been a statutory violation. BCBS subsequently moved for and was awarded summary judgment. The issue arose as to whether the notice received by the plaintiff from the EEOC acted to bar her from filing a discrimination complaint in circuit court. The Florida Civil Rights Act differs from Title VII in that a "no cause" finding bars subsequent action. However, there must be an actual "no cause" finding. A mere indication that the EEOC was unable to conclude that there had been a statutory violation does not act to bar the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court also held that the Notice issued by the EEOC was not in compliance with 760.11(3) because it was not issued within the statutorily designated time frame (180 days after filing a charge). Thus, the plaintiff should have been allowed to proceed with her suit even if the Notice issued by EEOC had clearly indicated a "no cause" finding.
Read More
African American female plaintiff asserted that she had been passed up for promotion on the basis of her race despite her experience with Blue Cross Blue Shield. She also asserted that her supervisor was purposefully directing assignments to other employees thereby denying her opportunities to earn credits toward promotion. A complaint was filed under the Florida Civil Rights Act jointly with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. More than (300) days after filing the complaint the plaintiff requested a right to sue letter. The EEOC responded that it was unable to conclude that there had been a statutory violation. BCBS subsequently moved for and was awarded summary judgment. The issue arose as to whether the notice received by the plaintiff from the EEOC acted to bar her from filing a discrimination complaint in circuit court. The Florida Civil Rights Act differs from Title VII in that a "no cause" finding bars subsequent action. However, there must be an actual "no cause" finding. A mere indication that the EEOC was unable to conclude that there had been a statutory violation does not act to bar the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court also held that the Notice issued by the EEOC was not in compliance with 760.11(3) because it was not issued within the statutorily designated time frame. Thus, the plaintiff should have been allowed to proceed with her suit even if the Notice issued by EEOC had clearly indicated a "no cause" finding.
Read More
African American female plaintiff asserted that she had been passed up for promotion on the basis of her race despite her experience with Blue Cross Blue Shield. She also asserted that her supervisor was purposefully directing assignments to other employees thereby denying her opportunities to earn credits toward promotion. A complaint was filed under the Florida Civil Rights Act jointly with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. More than (300) days after filing the complaint the plaintiff requested a right to sue letter. The EEOC responded that it was unable to conclude that there had been a statutory violation. BCBS subsequently moved for and was awarded summary judgment. The issue arose as to whether the notice received by the plaintiff from the EEOC acted to bar her from filing a discrimination complaint in circuit court. The Florida Civil Rights Act differs from Title VII in that a "no cause" finding bars subsequent action. However, there must be an actual "no cause" finding. A mere indication that the EEOC was unable to conclude that there had been a statutory violation does not act to bar the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court also held that the Notice issued by the EEOC was not in compliance with 760.11(3) because it was not issued within the statutorily designated time frame. Thus, the plaintiff should have been allowed to proceed with her suit even if the Notice issued by EEOC had clearly indicated a "no cause" finding.
Read More
Plaintiff brought this action claiming that she was denied promotion to the Juvenile Probation Office Supervisor because of her race and gender. The court held that the plainitff was not permitted to bring a separate or latent
Read More
Plaintiff brought this action claiming that she was denied promotion to the Juvenile Probation Office Supervisor because of her race and gender. The court held that the plaintiff was not permitted to bring a separate or latent
Read More
Plaintiff, an African American male of Haitian origin, asserted that his termination from employment was act of retaliation for his complaints to the EEOC. The court granted the employer
Read More
SCOTT v. SUNCOAST
15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C705 (11th Cir. July 5, 2002)
2002-07-05
RACE DISCRIMINATION
A black male plaintiff sued his former employer, Suncoast Beverage, alleging race discrimination. He claimed that Suncoast assigned him to a sales route that consisted of more, and smaller, accounts than other routes because of his race. He also alleged that he was terminated because of his race. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer as to these claims. Plaintiff also claimed that after his termination his employer failed to adequately notify him of his right to continue health coverage under COBRA. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $ 10,800 ($ 20 per day for a period of 540 days). On review, the appellate court found that there was not sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue as to pretext with respect to the discrimination claim. A co-worker's racist statement and the employer's difference in treatment of the employee and a white employee were not related to the employee's allegedly discriminatory route assignment. Concurrently, the evidence failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact with respect to the employee
Read More
Scott v. Suncoast
15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C705 (11th Cir. June 25, 2002)
2002-06-25
RACE DISCRIMINATION
Black male plaintiff sued his former employer, Suncoast Beverage, alleging race discrimination. He claimed that Suncoast assigned him to a sales route that consisted of more, and smaller, accounts than other routes because of his race. He also alleged that he was terminated because of his race. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer as to these claims. Plaintiff also claimed that after his termination his employer failed to adequately notify him of his right to continue health coverage under COBRA. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $ 10,800 ($ 20 per day for a period of 540 days). On review, the appellate court found that there was not sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue as to pretext with respect to the discrimination claim. A co worker's racist statement and the employer's difference in treatment of the employee and a white employee were not related to the employee's allegedly discriminatory route assignment. Concurrently, the evidence failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact with respect to the employee
Read More
Plaintiff and another off-duty police officer contracted to provide off-duty security at a teen dance. The promoter failed to pay the off-duty officers and was subsequently handcuffed until other officers arrived. The plaintiff was terminated because the Chief of Police believed that plaintiff had committed a crime and had been untruthful in an Internal Affairs and Criminal Investigation Division investigations relating to the incident. The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with local rules requiring a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue of material fact to be tried (appropriate deposition, affidavit, interrogatory, admission or other source of the relied upon material fact). Plaintiff also failed to establish that other similarly situated non-black officers were treated more favorably. Even if a prima facie case had been established, the defendant articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the plaintiff based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (criminal implications of the plaintiff
Read More
Plaintiff and another off-duty police officer contracted to provide off-duty security at a teen dance. The promoter failed to pay the off-duty officers and was subsequently handcuffed until other officers arrived. The plaintiff was terminated because the Chief of Police believed that plaintiff had committed a crime and had been untruthful in an Internal Affairs and Criminal Investigation Division investigations relating to the incident. The court found that the plaintiff has failed to comply with local rules requiring a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue of material fact to be tried (appropriate deposition, affidavit, interrogatory, admission or other source of the relied upon material fact). Plaintiff also failed to establish that other similarly situation non-black officers were treated more favorably. Even if a prima facie case had been established, the defendant articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the plaintiff based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (criminal implications of the plaintiff
Read More
The express language of the Miami-Dade County Code provides no provision for a private cause of action for employment discrimination.
Read More
The express language of the Miami-Dade County Code provides no provision for a private cause of action.
Read More
Plaintiff, an African American male of Haitian origin, asserted that his termination from employment was act of retaliation for his complaints to the EEOC. The court granted the employer
Read More
Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Homestead for alleged acts of retaliation and race discrimination. The court granted Defendant
Read More
A white-non Hispanic male police officer alleged that the county had discriminated against him because of his race, national origin and marital status. The court found that the direct evidence propounded by plaintiff was not a blatant and unambiguous discriminatory remark from which discrimination could be found without the aid of an inference. Additionally, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the captain, the individual involved in the disciplinary action report, was the person involved in the decisions to demote him. The court found that the assertion that similarly situated Hispanic sergeants, involved in the same conduct, but not demoted, was not direct evidence of discrimination. The court further found that even if the plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the supervisors harbored a discriminatory animus, the causal link was broken by the decisions of the independent hearing examiner, county manager and arbiter, all of whom found that the Department acted for legitimate reasons in upholding plaintiff
Read More
This case involved a claim of reverse race discimination. The district court interpreted language in a consent decree and the plaintiffs sought interlocutory appeal. The appellate court found that the order the plaintiffs sought to appeal did not modify the injunction and thus the court had no jurisdiction under
Read More
This was an action against an employer where the plaintiff alleged racial and religious discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. Nicolette Bernstein, a female plaintiff of Jewish ethenticy, was denied a promotion by her employer, SEPHORA, the owner of a chain of beauty product stores. The evidence concerning the manager
Read More
