A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that under federal law, employees are allowed to use circumstantial evidence to prove their employers engaged in sex discrimination.For a Limited Time receive a
FREE HR Report "Top 10 Best Practices in HR Management." This comprehensive special report will give you the information you need to know about these current HR challenges and how to most effectively manage them in your workplace.
Download NowReuters reports that the decision makes it easier for employees to sue for
discrimination because they need not provide only "direct evidence"
that sex was the motivating factor for employment actions. The U.S. Justice
Department had supported the argument that workers must provide only direct evidence
of discrimination.
"[An employee] need only present sufficient evidence for a reasonable
jury to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 'race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice,'"
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
The news agency notes that the court's ruling applies to "mixed motive"
cases in which there are discriminatory and nondiscriminatory reasons for an employment
decision.
The case involved a former employee of Caesars Palace Hotel and Casino in Las
Vegas who alleged the casino discriminated against her based on her sex during
her employment and when it fired her.
The former employee - who had a history of disciplinary actions before her
termination, which followed a dispute with a coworker - alleged she received
different discipline than male employees, was the recipient of less favorable
overtime, and the supervisors tolerated sex-based comments against her by other
employees, Reuters reports.
The casino argued that the employee needed to provide direct evidence that it terminated her for discriminatory reasons, saying the casino discharged the employee for legitimate reasons.
A jury had awarded the former employee $364,000 in damages.
The Supreme Court's decision upheld a U.S. appeals court ruling for the former
employee.
Links