Employment Law Update
By Joshua Skinner - Associate

United States Supreme Court

Desert Palace v. Costa, 123 S.Ct. 2148 (2003).

After Desert Palace, Inc. terminated Ms. Costa’s employment as a warehouse worker and heavy-equipment operator, she sued alleging sexual harassment and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.   The district court dismissed the sexual-harassment claim but permitted the sex-discrimination claim to go to trial.  The court instructed the jury that they should find for Costa if they determined that her sex was a motivating factor for her termination, but that they should not award damages if they found that Desert Palace would have terminated Costa irrespective of gender.  Desert Palace objected to this mixed-motive instruction, contending that Costa had not adduced “direct” evidence that sex was a motivating factor in her termination or any other adverse employment decision.  Initially, the Ninth Circuit reversed; but, after rehearing en banc, the court concluded that the statute did not impose a direct-evidence requirement in mixed motive cases.  In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII.

Fifth Circuit

Martin v. Alamo Community College District, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26389 (5^th Cir. 2003)

The plaintiff, Ms. Martin, filed a complaint with the EEOC regarding allegations of failure to accommodate her disability, harassment and for retaliation.   The EEOC issued her a right to sue letter on September 17, 1999.  Ms. Martin filed a complaint in District Court on December 17, 1999.  On the same day, the EEOC issued a letter reopening the case and, presumably, rescinding the right to sue letter.  According to federal law, if the EEOC issues such a letter after a complainant has filed suit, it does not work to rescind the right to sue letter.  Ms. Martin’s complaint was ultimately dismissed without prejudice and she re-filed her complaint after receiving a second right to sue letter.  The defendant, Alamo, filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that she was time-barred because the EEOC letter reopening the case was issued after Ms. Martin filed her complaint.  The Fifth Circuit concluded that “when the notice to reconsider is issued on the same day that the complaint is filed, the issuance and filing are simultaneous (irrespective of the hours and minutes) and, consequently, the complaint has not been filed before the issuance of the notice.”

Johnson v. Louisiana, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23258 (5^th Cir. 2003)

The various plaintiffs in the case applied for positions at Louisiana State University Medical Center ("LSUMC").   None were hired.  At trial, the defendants maintained that the plaintiffs could not maintain a prima facie case of discrimination because they were not qualified for the position based on an objective list of required qualification.  The plaintiffs, however, contended that they should not be evaluated based on the objective list because it was not applied to the individuals hired and, in fact, the individuals hired also did not qualify under the objective list.  The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the plaintiffs appealed.  The Fifth Circuit held that the District Court misapplied the appropriate standard that it should not use the defendant’s stated criteria when those criteria were not, in fact, applied to the successful applicant.  The proper question is not what the company states are the requirements for the position, but what qualifications the individuals hired actually had.

Smith v. Jackson, Miss., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23125 (5^th Cir. 2003)

Plaintiffs, over thirty police officers and dispatchers, brought a claim for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) claiming that pay scale changes resulted in age discrimination based on disparate impact.  The Fifth Circuit, addressing the issue for the first time, concluded that the ADEA does not entitle individuals to bring claims for age discrimination based on disparate impact.

Texas Supreme Court

Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola, 46 Tex. Sup. J. 1116 (Sept. 2003).

The plaintiff, Mr. Canchola, sued Walmart alleging discrimination based on disability.   Mr. Canchola had a heart condition and had some evidence of mistreatment based on problems relating to his disability.  However, an employee filed a sexual harassment charge against him with the company.  The company investigated and decided to terminate Mr. Canchola’s employment.  Mr. Canchola alleged that certain inadequacies in the investigation proved that it was a pretext for discrimination against him based on disability.  The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict in favor of Mr. Canchola because he had failed to offer any evidence that he was discriminated against because of his disability.  As the Court commented, “The relevant inquiry is not whether the complaints made against Canchola were a pretext, but what they were a pretext for. Canchola offered no evidence to show that Wal-Mart management was motivated to terminate him because of his heart condition.”

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © by Fanning Harper & Martinson P.C.. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.