Tag Archives: sex discrimination

Discrimination for being “unmanly”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc) ruled that an iron worker who was subjected to gay slurs and simulated sex because he failed to conform to the employer’s male stereotypes was discriminated against under Title VII.

In EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., No. 11-30770 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2013), the  court reviewed the jury’s findings and awarded damages.  The Fifth Circuit found that taking the case as a whole, a jury could have found that the employee was harassed because he did not fall under the “manly-man stereotype.”

This case arose when a worker, Kerry Woods, was subjected to sex harassment.  Woods was often sexual derogatory terms regarding Woods’ sexuality.  In addition, the superintendent also exposed himself when Woods was going to the bathroom, and made sexual innuendo comments to Woods.  When these actions were brought to the employer, the superintendent told the general superintendent that he didn’t care for Woods because he was “different” and “didn’t fit in.”

After trial the jury found that this verbal and physical harassment occurred daily.  The jury awarded Woods $200,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

via Harassed for being unmanly? En banc court sees Title VII violation; dissent sees clean-talk enforcer.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate, civil rights, discrimination, District Court, employment, federal, legal decision

Wal-Mart Class Action: class not narrowed

I bring to you this legal decision in a sex discrimination class action against Wal-Mart because it provides an example of a class that was not narrowed by the Court.  This is the Dukes case that went up to the Supreme Court to discuss the issue of commonality.  This decision can be found here.

In a 2001 federal complaint led by Betty Dukes, a putative class claimed that Wal-Mart Stores received paid women less and offered them fewer promotions than it offered men in comparable positions.

Though a San Francisco federal judge initially certified a class that would cover estimated 1.5 million women, making it the largest civil rights case in U.S. history, the Supreme Court disbanded that class in 2011 on the basis of lacking commonality. On remand, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint that seeks to certify a narrower class than that rejected by the high court.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based company responded with a motion to strike the class allegations. It claims that the statute of limitations bars the claims, and that the newly proposed class still fails to meet the commonality requirement.

Denying that motion, the Northern District of California set a deadline of Jan. 11, 2013, for the class-certification motion.  Undeterred, Wal-Mart sought leave to file an interim appeal with the 9th Circuit.

Wal-Mart argued that the Dukes Supreme Court decision should be interpreted as a total rejection of plaintiffs’ theories.  The District Court disagreed.  The District Court held that the Dukes Supreme Court decision rested on plaintiffs’ “inadequacy of their proof.”

The District Court explained:

The Supreme Court’s decision foreclosed claims that delegated discretion -alone- is sufficient to state a common question for purposes of Rule 23.  It does not follow that any time a plaintiff alleges that a company has a policy involving some amount of delegated discretion, the plaintiff is precluded from showing a classwide pattern or practice of discrimination or a common mode of exercising delegate discretion susceptible to classwide relief.  That is why the Supreme Court reached the question whether the plaintiffs had evidence on those points sufficient to establish a common question under Rule 23.

In his conclusion, Judge Breyer denied the interlocutory appeal “on the grounds that (1) immediate appeal would not, at this time, materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation in light of the impending certification motion, and (2) no substantial grounds for difference of opinion exist regarding the commonality issue.”

via Courthouse News Service.

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate, courts, employment, legal decision, Supreme Court, wage