Discrimination\" Directions: 1. Chose one of the following articles/cases to rea

Question

Discrimination"

Directions:

1. Chose one of the following articles/cases to read and post your thoughts on one of these issues and respond to the postings of at least two of your fellow students.

Can an employer be liable for a non-supervisor's alleged racial bias? Discuss the issues presented in BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC U.S. Supreme Court No. 06- 341. Certiorari granted Jan. 5, 2007. Ruling below: 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006) from your own perspective and how you understand the law in this area. 6 June 2010.

"Using The Duck Test For Professional Employees." By Christopher Mills and Jason Storipan.What do you think of this test? What other measure would you recommend?

"SOCIAL NETWORKING: A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY." Shaw, Jennifer Brown and Sperry, Alexander. What protections can you as a prospective employee take? Do you agree that employers should be looking into these areas?

Lewis, Tyler. "Unanimous Supreme Court Allows Firefighter Racial Discrimination Suit to Proceed" 24 May 2010. The Leadership Conference . 6 July 2010.

Greenhouse, Linda. "Justices Say Law Bars Retaliation Over Bias Claims." 28 May 2008, 6 July 2010,

ARTICLE:

Can an employer be liable for a non-supervisor's alleged racial bias?

BYLINE: Lawyers USA Staff

SECTION: NEWS

LENGTH: 494 words

Can an employer be held liable under Title VII for the alleged bias of a subordinate worker, if that worker did not make the employment decision at issue?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer this question.

It will review a decision from the 10th Circuit, which held that an employer could be sued even though the manager who made the decision to terminate a black employee was unaware of the employee's race.

In that case, a merchandiser at an Albuquerque, N.M. facility was terminated, and he filed a Title VII race discrimination complaint with the EEOC.

His employer claimed he was terminated for insubordination, and argued that the EEOC could not show that this reason was pretextual in light of undisputed evidence that the human resources manager who made the firing decision worked in the company's Phoenix, Ariz. office and had no idea that the employee was black.

But the 10th Circuit held that the EEOC could show that the employer's proffered reason for termination was pretextual by using evidence that the manager's decision was influenced by a biased subordinate - also known as the "cat's paw" theory.

"Holding employers accountable for the actions of biased subordinates also advances the purposes of Title VII. It should go without saying that a company's organizational charts do not always accurately reflect its decision making process. A biased low-level supervisor with no disciplinary authority might effectuate the termination of an employee from a protected class by recommending discharge or by selectively reporting or even fabricating information in communications with the formal decision maker. Recognition of subordinate bias claims forecloses a strategic option for employers who might seek to evade liability, even in the face of rampant race discrimination among subordinates, through willful blindness as to the source of reports and recommendations.

"To prevail on a subordinate bias claim, a plaintiff must establish more than mere 'influence' or 'input' in the decision making process. Rather, the issue is whether the biased subordinate's discriminatory reports, recommendation, or other actions caused the adverse employment action," the court said.

In the instant case, the EEOC met its burden based on evidence that "the human resources official relied exclusively on information provided by [the employee's] immediate supervisor, who not only knew [the employee's] race but allegedly had a history of treating black employees unfavorably and making disparaging racial remarks in the workplace," the court said.

It noted that the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th and DC Circuits had reach similar decisions, although the circuits have split as to the level of control the biased subordinate must exert over the employment decision.

A decision from the Court is expected later this term.

BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC U.S. Supreme Court No. 06-341. Certiorari granted Jan. 5, 2007. Ruling below: 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006).

LOAD-DATE: January 29, 2007

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DOCUMENT-TYPE: Legal activity (lawsuits etc.)

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Explanation / Answer

The employer is accountable for the decision.

An employee of the organization submits a report of in-disciplinary be it insubordination, racial descrimination, sexual harrasment or any issue. First, organization has to form a committee and has to do thorough interrogation of all issue on all the stake holders involved in it. Also, organization committee has to gather enough evidence from the other colleagues at the work place.

After studying the thorough interrogaton report, organization has to take necessary action against the accused. Also, organizaton can make and implement a policy related to such incidents to ensure such incidents should not occur in future.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse D
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.