 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DeCamp v. Dollar Tree Stores6/14/2005
nc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 67 (1986)). Both theories will be discussed in turn below. In doing so, this Court will remain faithful to federal precedents interpreting federal antidiscrimination statutes, such as Title VII. Newport Shipyard, Inc. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, 484 A.2d 893, 898 (R.I. 1984) (adopting the federal burden-shifting framework in a disparate treatment employment discrimination case pursuant to FEPA).
1. Gender-Based Disparate Treatment
In a gender-based disparate treatment claim based upon the three-step burden-shifting framework, a plaintiff must establish the following to state a prima facie case:
"(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was performing her job at a level that rules out the possibility that she was fired for inadequate job performance; (3) she suffered an adverse job action by her employer; and (4) her employer sought a replacement for her with roughly equivalent qualifications." Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1994).
The burden of proving a prima facie case "is not especially onerous." Barros, 710 A.2d at 685. The second step requires the employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action and the third step requires the employee to convince the fact-finder that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretext for unlawful discriminatory animus. See Casey, 861 A.2d at 1037-38.
The plaintiff meets the modest requirements of the prima facie case outlined above. As a female, she is a member of a protected class. She appeared to be in good standing with Dollar Tree before she went on medical leave. Dollar Tree's termination of plaintiff, despite its attempt to characterize it as a "voluntary resignation," undoubtedly qualifies as an adverse employment action. Finally, since there is no indication that her termination was related to corporate downsizing, we can assume that Dollar Tree sought to fill her vacancy with an applicant of roughly equal qualifications. Accordingly, the burden of production now shifts to defendants to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination.
The motion justice, however, failed to identify defendants' legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason in his ruling, and defendants do not offer any in their brief to this Court. We will not search the record on defendants' behalf and speculate about why defendants terminated plaintiff. Without it, we are left with the presumption that defendants discriminated against plaintiff based on her gender. Casey, 861 A.2d at 1037. Accordingly, this case must be remanded for proper application of the burden-shifting framework to her gender-based disparate treatment claim. Once defendants offer their legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff, the parties will be free to argue whether a reasonable juror could conclude that the reason offered is a pretext for discriminatory animus. Id. at 1039-40.
We therefore hold the motion justice erred by failing to require defendants to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff. Thus, summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's gender-based disparate treatment claim amounts to reversible error.
2. Hostile Work Environment
The existence of a gender-based hostile work environment is determined in light of "'the record as a whole'" and with regard to "'the totality of circumstances.'" Meritor Savings Bank, FSB, 477 U.S. at 69. The test for determining a gender-based hostile work environment claim is whether: (1) the employee is a member of a pr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rhode Island Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|