In March of 2007, the United States District Court in the Western District of Kentucky heard a case involving reverse discrimination. (See Gooden v. Ryan’s Restaurant Group, Inc., 2007 WL 855326 (W.D. Ky. 2013)). The reverse discrimination lawsuit was filed against the defendant employer and alleged both Title VII and Title I violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Kentucky Civil Rights Act violations and Kentucky defamation common law. Id.
The plaintiff was a manager who worked for the defendant. The defendant employer has an anti-fraternization policy which prohibits employees of the same restaurant from maintaining a personal relationship. The reverse discrimination plaintiff wanted to date a co-worker, so he asked for a transfer. It was granted.
During the reverse discrimination case, the plaintiff claimed that he had never violated the fraternization policy. But, during discovery of the case, the defendant discovered instant messages sent between the plaintiff and his ex-wife indicating that he had lied to the defendant in the investigation and was already involved in a personal relationship with a co-worker.
Next, while plaintiff was working for the defendant there was an issue of sexual harassment by co-workers against the plaintiff. He denied he did anything wrong. After an investigation, the plaintiff was terminated. Also, during his employment plaintiff never made any claims of racial or sexual discrimination. Id.
Plaintiff who is a white male, claims he was racially discrimination against. During this case, plaintiff presented little evidence to support his case. Id. Also, it was discovered during the discovery that the plaintiff was a leading member of a white supremacists organization which advocates hatred against minorities, including African –Americans. Defendant did not discover this until after plaintiff was terminated. Id. “Membership in a racial hate group, however, is grounds for termination under Defendants’ diversity policies.” Id.
The court then did a thorough analysis of whether plaintiff and his reverse discrimination attorney established the elements needed to beat a motion for summary judgment. The evidence presented by plaintiff’s reverse discrimination attorney was mostly circumstantial evidence. The court noted that self-serving, uncorroborated testimony by the plaintiff, this testimony alone is not enough to establish a question of fact as to whether direct evidence of racial or sexual discrimination exists. Id.
The defendant’s reverse discrimination attorney was able to show that the plaintiff’s dismissal was not solely based on a choice between firing a Caucasian male or an African-American female. Id. The plaintiff was also fired because of the sexual harassment complaints lodged against him. Id.
Finally, the court noted that the after acquired evidence though it does not act as an absolute bar to recovery, it nevertheless limits the remedy to damages incurred before the new evidence was discovered. (cites omitted). The discovery by the defendant of the white supremacy group would have lead to immediate termination. “Therefore, plaintiff would not be entitled to front pay from the earlier of the dates on which Defendant discovered plaintiff’s instant messages or plaintiff’s membership in… (the white supremacy group).” Id.
If you have been the subject of a reverse discrimination case, please call and speak to a reverse discrimination attorney 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!!!