Introduction to
Race Discrimination Law
Some Title VII
Cases
In
Ash v.
Tyson Foods, Inc., 126 S.Ct. 1195 (2006), the U.S. Supreme
Court holds that use of the term "boy" can be evidence
of discriminatory animus. The Supreme Court also rejects
the Eleventh Circuit's standard for determining when
disparity in qualifications can constitute evidence of
pretext -- but Supreme Court gives no guidance as to
what the correct standard is!
In Wright v.
Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2006), a
Title VII race discrimination action alleging wrongful
termination, the court held that in determining whether
the employer's proffered reasons are pretextual, it
would follow the "honest belief" rule developed by the
Seventh Circuit with one twist, the honest belief must
be based on a reasonably informed and considered
decision.
In
Ballance
v. City of Springfield, Illinois Police Dept., 424
F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2005), the court held that the white
police officer failed to prove that he was a victim of
race discrimination.
In Canady v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 440 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir.
2006), the court held that where a particular supervisor
was not involved in decision to terminate employee, that
supervisor's racially offensive comments were not part
of the decision making process.
In EEOC v.
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 450 F.3d
476 (10th Cir. 2006), the court held that the race
discrimination claim survives summary judgment even
though decisionmaker did not know that the employee was
black at the time the termination decision was made.
Opinion contains thorough discussion of "cat's paw"
theory and review of cases from other circuits.
The cat's paw theory refers to a situation where the
decisionmaker may not have had a racial motive to take
an adverse action against the plaintiff, but the
decisionmaker relied on the recommendation of someone
who did have a racial motive.
In Mastro v.
Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843 (D.C. Cir.
2006), the court held that the white plaintiff presented
sufficient evidence of "background circumstances" in
order to make out a prima facie case of race
discrimination. Background circumstances refers to
evidence that would support a finding that the employer
would discriminate against a member of the majority.
