CourtCases2010

In her new role she was responsible for both six

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ibuted to employer's decision. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In order to avoid summary judgment in Title VII employment discrimination suit, plaintiff is not required to prove that prohibited motivation was sole or even principal factor in decision, or that employer's proffered reasons played no role in employment decision, but only that plaintiff's membership in protected class contributed to employer's decision. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Employer's decision to terminate female employee because of her inadequate performance and because she tendered her resignation did not constitute pretext for gender discrimination, in violation of Title VII, despite employee's contentions that she had history of excellent performance, that she retracted her resignation, and that her supervisor had made demeaning remarks, where she missed deadlines her supervisor had given her, she did not attend pre-scheduled meeting with her supervisors, supervisors lost confidence in her ability after she said that she wanted to leave business, supervisor's remarks did not relate to employee's job performance, employee would not have been terminated had she not resigned, and there was no evidence that any male employees had been permitted to rescind their resignations. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 164 Stray remarks, absent some nexus between alleged comments and adverse action, cannot prove claim of employment discrimination under Title VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To determine in Title VII action whether comment is probative statement evidencing intent to discriminate or nonprobative stray remark, courts should consider: (1) who made remark; (2) when remark was made in relation to employment decision at issue; (3) whether reasonable juror could view remark as discriminatory; and (4) whether it was related to decision-making process. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Mary...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online