Gender discriminations can be either intentional or unintentional. Intentional d
ID: 374341 • Letter: G
Question
Gender discriminations can be either intentional or unintentional. Intentional discrimination consists of actions, which employee claims were done to him or her based on his or her sex or gender such as failure to hire, termination or demotion. Here the discrimination came in terms of the firing of Ms. Komac which cannot be deemed intentional because the employer is not explicitly mentioning that the reason behind her fire is gender-related. Instead, the reason is simply the lack of integrity. So, the discrimination, if at all exists, is unintentional.
For an unintentional gender discrimination, the plaintiff needs to demonstrate some elements to establish a prima facie case. These elements may vary from State to State but are primarily reliant on the following points - The plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was performing her job at a level that rules out the possibility that she was fired for inadequate job performance; (3) she suffered an adverse job action by her employer, and (4) her employer sought a replacement for her with roughly the equivalent qualifications (Duncan-Young v. Pine Street Inn, 1997 WL 136337,*1, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3435, *6 (D.Mass.1997)). In this case. Ms. Komac cannot establish point number (2) i.e. she was performing her job at a level that rules out the possibility that she was fired for inadequate job performance because clearly there was a lack of integrity from her side and she has also confirmed the same. Furthermore, comparison with other male employees may not be applicable here in terms of the fact that "for the same or similar conduct [she] was treated differently than similarly-situated [male] employees." Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582-83 (6th Cir.1992) because the other male employees were having different conditions such as different supervision. Therefore, she seems not having a prima facie gender discrimination case here.
Explanation / Answer
Wendy Komac was hired by Gordon Food Service as a salesperson. During the course of her employment, Gordon held sales contests such as the “Winner’s Circle” competition, which rewarded the salesperson who generated the most new customers. Ms. Komac’s supervisor received an unsigned letter that accused Ms. Komac of falsely representing new sales customers in her report. When confronted, she denied the allegations but was eliminated from the sale competition when she stated that “other employees routinely violated the rules.” Her supervisor gave a speech at the next sales meeting explaining that violations of the rules during sales competition would be grounds for termination. During a subsequent Tyson product competition, allegations again emerged about Ms. Komac’s conduct. When confronted, Ms. Komac admitted that she had reported products normally purchased by one of her long-term customers as being purchased by two other customers.
Following the second contest problem, Ms. Komac was fired. Ms. Komac filed suit alleging discrimination by Gordon. She gave examples of statements made to her over the course of her employment such as her pay being less because male employees “have a wife and three kids at home.” She also alleged that no male employees were terminated for violating contest rules. However, there was no evidence that any male employees had been caught cheating in contests after the supervisor’s speech.
Explain whether Ms. Komac has established a prima facie case of gender discrimination.
[Komac v. Gordon Food Service, 3 F. Supp. 2d 850 (N.D. Ohio 1998)]
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.