In most cases, employees are unable to provide direct evidence that they were terminated because of their race or another protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). In these situations, employees can present circumstantial evidence of discrimination by showing that employees outside of their protected class were treated more favorably under similar circumstances. A recent decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates this approach.
In Goodwin v. Newcomb Oil Company, LLC, No. 23-5594, 2024 WL 1828304 (6th Cir. Apr. 26, 2024), Goodwin, an African American truck driver, was wrongful terminated purportedly based on a complaint that he was driving recklessly and had broken traffic laws. His termination letter stated that he was terminated for alleged “aggressive” and “careless use of a company tanker.” Id. at *1. Goodwin subsequently filed a lawsuit against his former employer alleging race discrimination under Title VII and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”).
How is the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting test used to prove race discrimination?
Because most employers do not overtly engage in racially discriminatory conduct, courts typically use the burden shifting analysis first developed by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Known as the McDonnell Douglas test, an employee must initially present evidence on four different prima facie elements. The first three relate to the employee, who must show that he/she/they was (1) in a protected class based on race; (2) subject to an adverse employment action; (3) qualified to perform the job. The fourth element will depend on the type of discrimination claim being asserted. In a wrongful termination case, the fourth element requires proof that the employee was replaced with someone outside the protected class or that the employee’s termination allowed the retention of an employee outside the protected class. Likewise, in a failure to promote case, the employee must present evidence that the promotion went to another worker of a different race. In a disparate treatment discrimination claim, the fourth element requires evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently.
If the employee presents each evidence of each of these elements, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate reason for taking the action in question – obviously, one that is not based on race. At that point, the employee can so that the given reason was false, not really believed by the employer, or not a sufficient reason to actually motivate the action taken. This is called pretext.
Best Race Discrimination Lawyer Blogs On Point:
- Limiting Overtime Based On Race Is Discrimination
- Can I Sue Because My Job Treats Me Worse Because Of My Race?
- Employer Liable For Boss’s 6-Year-Old Kid Calling Worker N-Word
- Who Is A Similarly Situated Employee For Disparate Treatment Discrimination Claims?
How do I get the evidence to prove my race discrimination case?
You may have a good deal of evidence from what you already know or have in your possession, but you do not need to have all of the evidence before you meet with an attorney or even file a lawsuit. A good lawyer can use discovery during the litigation to get information and documents that you don’t have and might not even know about.
In this case, as circumstantial evidence of discrimination, Goodwin alleged that three Caucasian employees had engaged in more serious safety violations and were not terminated. Id. at at *4-5. For example, one employee had received multiple disciplinary notices and rear-ended a vehicle. Id. at *4. Another employee, Adams, was disciplined for smoking while transporting highly flammable substances but not terminated. Id.
The District Court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on his claims, holding that there was no dispute of material fact that he was terminated based on his performance, not race discrimination. Id. at 2.
However, the Sixth Circuit disagreed on appeal and reversed the decision. It held that a jury could reasonably conclude that Adams’s two smoking incidents were at least as “reckless, careless, and dangerous” as Goodwin’s incidents. Id. at *6. It further held that it was a question for the jury of whether “likelihood and relative severity” of Goodwin’s alleged violations “justified differential discipline” in comparison to Adams. Id. at 7. As such, the Court vacated the award of summary judgment to the employer. Id.
The key takeaway here is that even if you do not have direct evidence that you were terminated based on your race, you may still have a viable case and should consult an employment attorney as soon as possible.
Best Wrongful Termination Attorney Blogs On Point:
- You Don’t Need All Evidence To Start A Discrimination Case
- It Is Critical To Document Complaints Of Discrimination And Harassment
- Why Having Skilled Employment Attorneys Is Critical
How do I find the best lawyer to help me with a claim for racial discrimination?
If dealing with race discrimination or harassment because you are Black at your workplace, call the right attorney now. Race discrimination takes many forms and may involve harassment, unfair discipline, wrongful termination, disparate treatment discrimination, demotions, and/or being paid less. When you call Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, you will get a free and confidential consultation with experienced race discrimination lawyers who will help you to figure out the best way to pursue your potential legal claims. (Read: What is the Spitz No Fee Guarantee?). Our Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and North Carolina employee’s rights attorneys are here waiting to help you.
Best Employees’ Rights Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- More Problems If You Hire A Bad Employment Lawyer
- What Happens If I Don’t Call the Right Attorney?
- Spitz Lawyers Win $1.33 Million Verdict
- Hiring The Wrong Attorney Can Seriously F’Up Your Employment Case
- Employment Law: Avoid Hiring The Wrong Attorney
Disclaimer
The content provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While we aim to provide accurate and up-to-date information, the complexities of employment law, particularly in cases involving race discrimination, wrongful termination, and other related matters, mean that each situation is unique. Therefore, the information presented here may not apply to your specific circumstances.
We strongly advise you to consult with a qualified employment lawyer who can offer personalized advice tailored to your particular case. Relying solely on the information provided in this blog without seeking professional legal counsel could lead to misunderstandings or inappropriate actions.
Please be aware that no attorney-client relationship is formed by your use of this blog, and no promises or guarantees are made regarding the outcome of any legal matter discussed. This blog should be considered a legal advertisement and is intended to promote awareness of employment law issues, including those related to race discrimination, being fired, or wrongful termination.
For specific legal advice and guidance, please contact an experienced employment lawyer directly.