In January of 2013 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky decided a case involving national origin retaliation discrimination. (See Herrera v. Churchill McGee, LlC, 2013 WL 211079 (E.D. Ky. 2013)). In this national origin retaliation discrimination case the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and this court decided in their favor for the following reason.
The plaintiff in this discrimination case was an African-Cuban who began working for the defendants in 2003 as a general laborer. Id. While he worked for the defendants, plaintiff was arrested a few times and missed work because of it. Id. He also received a below average review in December of 2007. Id. Plaintiff was finally terminated on March 22, 2008 after being arrested again and missing more work. Id.
Plaintiff sued the defendants claiming that other similarly situated non-Hispanic employees were treated differently than he was. He filed a Louisville national origin retaliation discrimination lawsuit. He claims that other non-Hispanic workers who had been arrested were allowed to keep their jobs. Defendants denied this claim and said he was fired for poor attendance and for below average work. Id.
Under the federal statute 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, an employer is prohibited from retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected activity. (cites omitted). The Court then looked at plaintiff’s claim for national origin retaliatory discrimination under the McDonnell Douglass evidentiary framework. Id. Under that framework, plaintiff must show that “1) he engaged in protected activity, 2) the activity was known to the defendants, 3) he was subjected to materially adverse action, and 4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.” (cites omitted).
The Court looked at the four factors and found that plaintiff met the first three but not the fourth. As to showing a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action plaintiff must not only show a temporal proximity but also that he was treated differently from other employees. Id. “A causal connection may be shown by “demonstrating that the adverse action was taken shortly after the plaintiff filed the complaint and by showing that the was treated differently from other employees.”” (cites omitted). In this Louisville national origin retaliation discrimination case, the Plaintiff was unable to show that he was treated than other employees. Id.
Plaintiff tried to claim pretext, but the court held that he did not. To prove pretext, plaintiff must show “both that the reason was false, and that discrimination or
retaliation was the real reason.” (cites omitted).
If you have been the subject of a Louisville national origin retaliation discrimination case, please call and speak to a Louisville national origin retaliation discrimination lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (888-275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!