“A reasonable jury could consider the strength of [Plaintiff’s] qualifications vis-à-vis the successful younger applicants as undermining the credibility of [Defendant’s] proffered hiring rationale—i.e., that the younger successful applicants were selected because they were all better qualified than her. Indeed, evidence of a plaintiff’s superior qualifications is directly probative of pretext, Patterson, 491 U.S. at
More Posts
Plaintiff’s stronger qualifications can by itself create pretext in a failure to hire case. No “clearly better qualified” analysis required
A fact issue exists as to whether or not an applicant applied for the open position, when the decision maker fails to follow his own policy of going to back to review early applications after the position is formally posted.
Plaintiff’s inconsistent statements when reporting the circumstances surrounding a job related personal injury does not preclude Plaintiff from asserting a claim of retaliatory termination, when there is evidence of impaired thought processes.
A jury may reasonably conclude that Defendant failed to establish the Ellerth /Faragher defense when an employer has failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behavior.
Countless instances of being called racial epithets by both supervisors and coworkers is sufficient evidence that the harassing conduct affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment and that Defendant’s conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constituted a hostile work environment.
An employee complaining of racial epithets and informing supervisors that they made him uncomfortable and requesting that these terms not be used to refer to him is evidence that (1) the employee was subject to unwelcome harassment and (2) that the harassment was based on a protected characteristic.
Terminating Plaintiff’s contract after twenty-four years of employment in the absence of prior work related complaints is evidence of pretext.
decisionmaker asserting influence over other members of the deciding board with regards to terminating the employment contract of a Caucasian male only in order to replace him with an African-American female is evidence of pretext.
In making a prima facie case, a time lapse under four (4) months is sufficient to satisfy the causal connection requirement needed to survive Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org