Termination of Protected Class Employee in At-Will State

[cbg]

With the facts you've presented, you will never in a million years get anyone to believe that this was not discrimination. Nor does your attempt to shift blame to HR lessen the company's liability one whit. I'm not going to go into the reasons why HR is likely not responsible because you're so far in denial, it would be a waste of time.

You have heard from lawyers, experienced HR people, and lay people, all of whom have told you exactly the same thing; your employer is toast. You need your legal counsel involved. Take that advice or leave it but when your company ends up paying many, many thousands of dollars out and you as the immediate manager are out on the street without a job, just remember; you heard it here first.

 

[throwaway65759]

My instinct is that there would need to be proof of racial injustice in order for it to hold. Evidence would be lacking for the other side. There may be paperwork missing on our end internally, but fact of the matter is that you don't really need a reason to fire somebody in a company. You can basically just do it if they don't fit. Who cares if they're a minority? Still have to get along.

I do not know of any legal ramifications of firing somebody because they don't fit the mold. So in order to go against that, the person making the accusation would have to prove that there were racial tensions - whether that be through eyewitness account or correspondence. Chances are they don't have any form of proof to push their case.

 

[commentator]

No, actually "chances are" that a good labor law attorney will be willing to take this person's right to sue letter that he is liable to get from the EEOC on spec. They need to show a pattern of discriminatory behavior in this particular workplace. And I bet chances are that they may be able to come up with some. From what you have said, they are simply leaping off the page. And from where you are, you may not be aware of everything. You could not possibly know everything that has happened to and with this particular employee during their tenure there.

 

[henbob6]

My instinct is that there would need to be proof of racial injustice in order for it to hold. Evidence would be lacking for the other side. There may be paperwork missing on our end internally, but fact of the matter is that you don't really need a reason to fire somebody in a company. You can basically just do it if they don't fit. Who cares if they're a minority? Still have to get along.

I do not know of any legal ramifications of firing somebody because they don't fit the mold. So in order to go against that, the person making the accusation would have to prove that there were racial tensions - whether that be through eyewitness account or correspondence. Chances are they don't have any form of proof to push their case.

What you're not seeing is that the other side doesn't need proof of racial tensions - the facts as you've presented them ARE proof. Stop trying to find a straw to grasp, and listen to the senior been-there-done-that posters.

 

[LdiJ]

My instinct is that there would need to be proof of racial injustice in order for it to hold. Evidence would be lacking for the other side. There may be paperwork missing on our end internally, but fact of the matter is that you don't really need a reason to fire somebody in a company. You can basically just do it if they don't fit. Who cares if they're a minority? Still have to get along.

I do not know of any legal ramifications of firing somebody because they don't fit the mold. So in order to go against that, the person making the accusation would have to prove that there were racial tensions - whether that be through eyewitness account or correspondence. Chances are they don't have any form of proof to push their case.

Your "instincts" are so far in denial that you are burying your head in the sand. Why in the world you are still posting on an internet forum rather than getting an attorney involved is absolutely beyond me.

Unless you are the "higher up" involved in the case, in which case, expect to be out of a job soon.

 

[cbg]

3 employees involved in the same incident - 1 minority employee who is fired + 2 non-minority employees who are not fired = proof of racial injustice.

No matter how hard you try to deny it.

 

[eerelations]

My instinct is that there would need to be proof of racial injustice in order for it to hold.

There is proof.

 

[throwaway65759]

The minority employee was dismissed not because of insubordination, but due to performance issues. This is why he was subject to the mid-year performance evaluation and later dismissed.

If his two white coworkers had also showed performance issues, they too would have been given a mid-year performance evaluation and subsequently dismissed.

If the minority employee happened to be white and showed performance issues, then he too would have been given a mid-year performance evaluation and subsequently dismissed.

So what evidence is there of racial discrimination?

 

[Zigner]

The minority employee was dismissed not because of insubordination, but due to performance issues. This is why he was subject to the mid-year performance evaluation and later dismissed.

If his two white coworkers had also showed performance issues, they too would have been given a mid-year performance evaluation and subsequently dismissed.

If the minority employee happened to be white and showed performance issues, then he too would have been given a mid-year performance evaluation and subsequently dismissed.

So what evidence is there of racial discrimination?

The fact that the ONE employee was targeted with a mid-year evaluation...

 

[throwaway65759]

The fact that the ONE employee was targeted with a mid-year evaluation...

It wasn't due to race, but due to performance. If he had been white he still would have still received it.

How is this any different from a written warning given to one employee for performance?

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

It wasn't due to race, but due to performance. If he had been white he still would have still received it.

You keep saying that. Can you offer evidence that this is true? Frankly, as a juror I'm close to arguing about the amount of damages, not whether there should be any.

 

[throwaway65759]

This could just as easily have happened if the employee had been white with performance issues. I will concede the higher-up may have held a grudge, but on account of personal animosity not racism as I've never heard said the individual say or do anything remotely racist.

It only looks like discrimination because by sheer happenstance/coincidence, he happens to be the only minority in an all-white department. By this logic, wouldn't this mean any non-white employee in an all-white department is granted bulletproof immunity from discipline and termination?

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

This could just as easily have happened if the employee had been white with performance issues. I will concede the higher-up may have held a grudge, but on account of personal animosity not racism as I've never heard said the individual say or do anything remotely racist.

It only looks like discrimination because by sheer happenstance/coincidence, he happens to be the only minority in an all-white department. By this logic, wouldn't this mean any non-white employee in an all-white department is granted bulletproof immunity from discipline and termination?

That he's the only minority doesn't help your case. I just tacked on another million.

 

[Zigner]

This could just as easily have happened if the employee had been white with performance issues. I will concede the higher-up may have held a grudge, but on account of personal animosity not racism as I've never heard said the individual say or do anything remotely racist.

It only looks like discrimination because by sheer happenstance/coincidence, he happens to be the only minority in an all-white department. By this logic, wouldn't this mean any non-white employee in an all-white department is granted bulletproof immunity from discipline and termination?

You should treat the employees the same. Instead, the minority was singled out with a trumped up "mid-year evaluation" that no other department employee was subject to. You claim it was because of performance issues, but how can you prove that? Oh yeah, I know how you could prove it - show that ALL employees get the same mid-year evaluation. But you can't do that - only the minority employee that is disliked by higher-ups was subjected to that treatment. The higher ups only like the white guys.

(See how that looks?)

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

This could just as easily have happened if the employee had been white with performance issues. I will concede the higher-up may have held a grudge, but on account of personal animosity not racism as I've never heard said the individual say or do anything remotely racist.

It only looks like discrimination because by sheer happenstance/coincidence, he happens to be the only minority in an all-white department. By this logic, wouldn't this mean any non-white employee in an all-white department is granted bulletproof immunity from discipline and termination?

Again, you keep saying why things "could" be. Evidence. Do you have any?