Supreme Court Allows Circumstantial Sex Bias Cases

Reuters | Mon, Jun 09, 2003 | James Vicini

[presidio9]

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) made it easier on Monday for workers to sue their employers for sex discrimination, ruling such cases can be proven with circumstantial evidence.

The high court rejected the argument supported by the U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) that workers must produce only "direct evidence" of discrimination under a federal anti-discrimination law. In the court's 11-page ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) rejected such a heightened standard.

Under the law, a plaintiff need only present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that sex was a motivating factor, he said. The plaintiff may use direct or circumstantial evidence.

The ruling applied to "mixed motive" cases with legitimate and illegitimate reasons motivating the employer's action.

The case involved Catharina Costa, a warehouse worker from 1987 to 1994 at Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. Costa, the only female employee in the warehouse, was disciplined a number of times and eventually was fired.

The firing came after she was involved in a fight with a fellow employee, Herbert Gerber. Both were disciplined because the facts surrounding the incident were in dispute. But Gerber, who did not have a history of disciplinary actions, received only a 5-day suspension.

Costa sued, claiming sex discrimination while she was an employee and in her firing.

A federal judge allowed the case to go to trial. Costa presented evidence she had been singled out for "stalking" by a supervisor, that she received harsher discipline than men for the same conduct, that she was treated less favorably for overtime and that her supervisors tolerated sex-based slurs against her.

A jury awarded her more than $364,000 in damages. A U.S. appeals court ruled for Costa, finding the 1991 civil rights law does not impose a special requirement of direct evidence of discriminatory intent.

The justices upheld the appeals court ruling. Thomas said the court has often acknowledged the utility of circumstantial evidence in discrimination cases.

[Darksheare]

Umm, let's see.
I own a business and do not hire a woman based off teh fact that she is just plain unqualified.
She sues me for sex discrimination.
Basically, she'd win due to the circumstantial evidence.

Thanks, Idiots of the Court.

[PISANO]

Am I misreading this or does this say that if it is HIS word against HER word..........HER WORD prevails?

[xm177e2]

She received harsher penalties for the same infractions: but did she have more infractions than the other (male) employees? If so, it would make sense to punish her more harshly.

As far as the fight goes, if she started it, and that guy was defending himself (he had no history of misbehavior), of course she should be punished more.

This sounds like the case of a bad employee who turns around and claims the proof she was mistreated is that she was punished so often (even though it was all justified).

[mvpel]

I own a business and do not hire a woman based off teh fact that she is just plain unqualified. She sues me for sex discrimination. Basically, she'd win due to the circumstantial evidence.

Let's do the instant replay:

...that she received harsher discipline than men for the same conduct, that she was treated less favorably for overtime and that her supervisors tolerated sex-based slurs against her.

Nope, I don't see anything there that has to do with refusing to hire an unqualified woman. If you have a demonstrated pattern of refusing to hire woman regardless of their qualifications, and you asked her to give you a hummer during the interview, then she might have a case, but you didn't specify that sort of scenario.

[Darksheare]

Sure, let's replay.
"Allowing circumstantial evidence."

[Darksheare]

Here in the GREAT state of New York, several women have tried to 'get back' at companies that wouldn't hire them.
One guess as to HOW they decided to 'get back'.

This ruling makes what I stated, guess, MORE EASY and PROBABLE.
PLEASE use the brain youu were born with.
The liberals and anyone with a grudge are going to be doing just that.
Think about it, how do they use any law they run into?

[Diddle E. Squat]

Police Rescue Pre-School from Rubber Spider

Trembling teachers at a German pre-school called in police to confront a giant spider crawling in a sandbox but it turned out to be a rubber toy, police in the western town of Heilbronn said Sunday.

"They were all highly agitated and trembling with fear," a police spokesman said. Two officers closed off the sandbox and surrounded the "spider" before discovering it was just an imitation toy.

Advocates of Equal Rights Amendment Resume Their Fight

[AntiGuv]

Do you understand the distinction between direct & circumstantial evidence? A quick search brought up this:

Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

[Darksheare]

Yes.
The ruling allows circumstantial evidence.
It says so.
And, guess what.. This would set precedent for OTHER cases where 'sex bias' isn't the problem.
They will then expand on the ruling.
The Libs have done that with OTHER laws before.

[AntiGuv]

Your particular example (mere failure to hire an unqualified applicant) is not circumstantial evidence of discrimination, nor will it ever be. If you wish to expand on your hypothetical, then that's another matter altogether..

[presidio9]

Thanks for "alerting" me to that rubber spider article. I might have missed it...



"Police Rescue Pre-School from Rubber Spider
Reuters ^ | Mon, Jun 09, 2003


Posted on 06/09/2003 9:21 AM PDT by presidio9


Trembling teachers at a German pre-school called..."

[george wythe]

As an employer or manager, when dealing with employees from a "protected class," i.e. women and minorities, you should always CYA.

That means always document any reprimand, any violation of rules, and any lack of productivity in writing.

For example, after having a brief conversation discussing her regular tardiness, you shoud e-mail the female employee a brief paragraph documenting her tardiness, or write the minutes of the meeting, or place a letter in her file.

Also if a female employee requests a day off for personal reason, e-mail her your response. If your company does not have internal e-mail, keep a log with contemporary entries in ink (similar to a chemistry journal)

[Darksheare]

Here in New York, that would be enough.
Merely not hiring a woman is enough for New York.
Doesn't matter if she's qualified for the job or not.

So here, it's quite apt.
I guess one would need to see it firsthand to understand what I'm trying to convey.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Sorry, I actually wasn't posting with you in mind, but rather to make a point before any "there is no difference between men and women" babble gets started.

[presidio9]

Oh, no problem. Just teasing you. I agree with you 100% here.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Yes. The ruling allows circumstantial evidence. It says so. And, guess what.. This would set precedent for OTHER cases where 'sex bias' isn't the problem. They will then expand on the ruling. The Libs have done that with OTHER laws before.

What the court wrote in its decision is that circumstantial evidence is already considered sufficient, in every other kind of case, including a criminal case, and that discrimination cases shouldn't be treated differently from other cases. Not surprising the ruling was 9-0.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Am I misreading this or does this say that if it is HIS word against HER word..........HER WORD prevails?

No, it's saying that if it's his word against her word, a jury decides. Same as in any other kind of case ("That's the man who mugged me" "No, it wasn't me").

[Darksheare]

Very few judges in New York are conservatives at all.
Most are Liberal Bots who rarely uphold the law at all, let alone consider evidence in such cases.
So, from the point of view of a resident of the Socialist Worker's Paradise of New York, this ruling is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Darksheare]

Yes.
How.. quaint.