Call The Right Attorney™
No Fee Guarantee

Jessica Ivey, an Asian woman, sued her employer, Crestwood Medical Center, alleging race  and national origin discrimination as well as retaliation resulting in her wrongful termination. Do to various circumstances, Ivey was temporarily given an alternative schedule. When Crestwood tried to put Ivey back on her regular schedule, she declined. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals skipped evaluated the initial elements of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and moved right to the fact that Ivey could not (and never tried to) refute the legitimate business reason given by her employer for firing her:

Crestwood tried to reach a compromise with Ivey; it emailed and called her multiple times, offered her other positions at the hospital with the same or higher pay, and yet she declined every offer. That refusal to return to a normal schedule was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to terminate Ivey’s employment with Crestwood, and Ivey has not presented any evidence to the contrary. She does not even argue in her brief that this explanation was pretextual, let alone that Crestwood’s proffered reason was both false and that the true reason was discriminatory. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993). In short, Ivey has not shown that there is a genuine dispute that Crestwood terminated her employment on account of her race.

Ivey, v. Crestwood Medical Center, No. 23-11936, 2024 WL 1269765, at *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 26, 2024).

Often cases come down to common sense. The employer was not discriminatory against her race or national origin when it gave Ivey the alternative schedule. There was no evidence that non-Asian employees were allowed to remain on alternative schedules indefinitely. The fact that the employer had offered higher paid positions cuts against any arguments that the employer was out to get her.

As long as employers treat employees equally based on race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious, national origin, disability, and age, no employees are entitled to demand particular schedules or work conditions (absent a request for a disability accommodation). Title VII only protects employees from discrimination based on protected characteristics. Title VII does not protect employees from generally mean bosses, equally enforced rules, or unfavorable schedules.

Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer Blogs on Point:

 

What should I do if I thing I was wrongfully fired by my employer?

Consulting knowledgeable employee’s rights attorneys is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, they possess specialized expertise in employment law, allowing them to assess the merits of potential claims accurately. This helps individuals avoid pursuing claims that lack legal basis or sufficient evidence, saving time and resources. Additionally, experienced attorneys can provide invaluable guidance on the applicable laws, procedural requirements, and potential outcomes, ensuring that clients are well-informed before taking legal action.

Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, stands out as the right choice for several reasons. With a team of highly skilled attorneys specializing in employee’s rights, they have a deep understanding of employment law and extensive experience handling various employment-related matters. Their track record of successful outcomes in employee discrimination cases demonstrates their proficiency and dedication to advocating for their clients’ rights.

Moreover, Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, offers personalized attention and support to each client, prioritizing their well-being and best interests. Clients can trust that their cases will be handled with the utmost professionalism and care. Additionally, Spitz operates on a no-fee guarantee basis, meaning clients only pay if their case is successful, providing peace of mind and ensuring access to legal representation without financial risk.

By choosing Spitz, individuals can benefit from the firm’s comprehensive legal knowledge, proven track record, and commitment to achieving favorable outcomes for their clients.

Disclaimer:

The information provided on this blog regarding race and national origin discrimination is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Viewing this blog or communicating with our firm through it does not establish an attorney-client relationship. While we strive to provide accurate and relevant information, we make no guarantees about its completeness or reliability. Any reliance you place on the information provided is at your own risk. Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm is not liable for any loss or damage resulting from the use of this blog. Links to third-party websites are provided for convenience and do not imply endorsement. Each discrimination case is unique, and prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Before making any decisions based on information from this blog, consult with a qualified attorney. By accessing and using this blog, you agree to these terms. If you do not agree, do not use this blog.