Dive Temporary:
- The CEO of CASSE Group Well being Institute, a nonprofit group that operates well being clinics in Louisiana, retaliated in opposition to a Black dental assistant by inserting her on unpaid go away and firing her as a result of she complained about race discrimination, a federal district court docket held Jan. 5 in EEOC v. Council for the Development of Social Companies and Training.
- In June 2020, the White dental director on the clinic the place the dental assistant labored requested her in entrance of White workers if she had attended a Black Lives Matter protest, in keeping with court docket paperwork. The dental assistant believed the query was racially charged and complained to a co-worker. Shortly thereafter, the CEO, who can be White, texted the assistant she was being positioned on unpaid administrative go away pending an evaluation of the incident, court docket data stated.
- The dental assistant was by no means requested to return, and the CEO advised EEOC investigators she was terminated for “introduction of race” into the office, in keeping with the file. The EEOC sued CASSE for alleged race discrimination, race harassment and retaliation underneath TItle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Primarily based on the CEO’s textual content and what she advised the EEOC, the court docket discovered CASSE answerable for retaliation and granted partial abstract judgment to the EEOC.
Dive Perception:
The ruling represents the weird case the place a decision-maker’s statements can instantly set up employer legal responsibility.
Because the court docket defined, “Right here, [the dental assistant] was positioned on unpaid administrative go away, which is clearly an antagonistic motion.” The CEO’s textual content and feedback to the EEOC had been direct proof this occurred as a result of the dental assistant complained concerning the dental director’s allegedly discriminatory conduct, the court docket stated.
The case provides one other takeaway: Employers may be answerable for retaliation even when the underlying conduct isn’t illegal, as long as the worker complaining concerning the conduct fairly believed it was illegal and was handled adversely as a result of she complained, the court docket identified.
The court docket famous that it was questionable whether or not the dental director’s conduct, standing alone, may kind the idea of a discrimination declare.
Nonetheless, given the context — the dental director directed his query to the one Black worker current and in entrance of a gaggle of White co-workers — the dental assistant may fairly imagine he singled her out due to her race and his conduct was racially discriminatory, the court docket discovered.
From a compliance viewpoint, employers ought to by no means “deal with complaints as the issue,” an EEOC regional legal professional acknowledged in July. In that case, a Maryland retirement group agreed to pay $85,000 to settle EEOC allegations it refused to advertise a Black supervisor and fired her after she complained of discrimination.
