Accused of Racial Discrimination After Firing an At-Will Employee

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: OR

We are in an at-will state. We recently terminated an employee who falls in a protected class (racial minority).

The employee's attorney has come back to us alleging race discrimination.

The employee's personnel file indicates no documentation of feedback, progressive disciplinary process or warnings of disciplinary action.

The employee's annual performance review is "Meets Expectations" with no negative commentary.

What should we do now?

EDIT: The employee was terminated because someone higher up didn't like him. This higher-up joined the company after the minority employee and was not involved in the hiring process. Since the employee is the only minority in the department, is it possible the courts may infer discrimination?

EDIT 2: Upon digging through the personnel file we've discovered one mid-year evaluation on file. The mid-year evaluation was drafted by the higher up who didn't like him and contains some written evidence of performance lapses. However, it seems subjective as there's no objective scoring or ranking on a scale as with our annual performance review. It also seems to be inconsistent with the posted job description we gave him.

This minority employee was the only one in the department to get a mid-year evaluation (everyone else is in the department is white and did not get one).

There's no date on the mid-year evaluation and no signature from the supervisor, HR or any higher ups. It also does not have any statements about disciplinary consequences (ie. "up to and including termination"), no points for improvement, and no timeline for improvement.

We also don't have any documentation of prior or subsequent warnings or feedback.

What should we do now?

Talk to your company counsel cause that higher up has put you in a bad spot. Saying that a court might infer would be difficult as courts sometimes don't do the expected, but this looks kinda bad.

When asked, what reason was given for not liking the employee? Has that higher up ever shown any sign of racial bias?

What was the given reason for termination?

Thanks for clarifying. I believe the minority employee questioned a decision of the higher-up which the higher-up perceived as a challenge to their authority. Seems that higher-up has singled him out since and looked for some way to get rid of him. The reason given was performance.

We are in at-will state so we thought it was fine. Unfortunately we failed to consider the minority/protected class angle. Since the employee is the only racial minority in the department and the only one who received a mid-year performance appraisal (for alleged performance issues), we fear that it may be inferred as motivated by racial animus in court, even if it's just coincidence.

The higher-up is new to the company and has been with the company for less time than the minority employee. AFAIK we've never heard overt discriminatory remarks but the minority employee is the only one who was discharged by this individual. Everyone else in the department is white.

Would you recommend speaking to the higher-up to rescind the decision and allow reinstatement as per the employee's attorney's request? How should we resolve this?

Quote:

---

hrowaway64759;920269]Thanks for clarifying. I believe the minority employee questioned a decision of the higher-up which the higher-up perceived as a challenge to their authority. Seems that higher-up has singled him out since and looked for some way to get rid of him. The reason given was performance.

---

So, was there actually a performance issue, one that can be supported by others within the company?

Quote:

---

We are in at-will state so we thought it was fine.

---

there are still laws against discrimination that are applicable in all states. There are laws against other forms of discrimination as well. It sounds like your management is due for some training on actual discrimination and perceived discrimination so this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

Quote:

---

Since the employee is the only racial minority in the department and the only one who received a mid-year performance appraisal (for alleged performance issues), we fear that it may be inferred as motivated by racial animus in court, even if it's just coincidence.

---

sometimes the coincidence is enough to hang you, especially if it appears to not be so coincidental, such as the only person to receive a mid year evaluation, even if it is for what appears to be a valid reason. If no other employees have received mid year evaluations, especially if there was some with issues, it really looks like this employee was targeted. that in itself is not illegal but given it is the only racial minority, it starts to become damning.



The higher-up is new to the company and has been with the company for less time than the minority employee. AFAIK we've never heard overt discriminatory remarks but the minority employee is the only one who was discharged by this individual. Everyone else in the department is white.

Quote:

---

Would you recommend speaking to the higher-up to rescind the decision and allow reinstatement as per the employee's attorney's request? How should we resolve this?

---

Reversing the decision does not cure the action. As well, it may set a precedent to show that you did believe it was racial in nature and as such, puts it in the record that the manager does have a racial bias. That could be important in the future for any discrimination claim. If the discharge was justified, it may be better to stick to your guns and fight this. This is really the time to speak with company counsel.

Let's put it this way.

Your former employee wouldn't have to work very hard to show a prima facie case. I told you on the other forum where I've seen this question that I'd rather be the attorney representing the employee than the one representing your employer. I would recommend doing whatever it takes to keep this from getting to a formal discrimination claim because right now, your chances of winning aren't very high IMO. Reinstate the employee, settle money on the employee, fire the hire-up; whatever it takes. But if this goes to the EEOC and eventually to court, you're toast.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Let's put it this way.

Your former employee wouldn't have to work very hard to show a prima facie case. I told you on the other forum where I've seen this question that I'd rather be the attorney representing the employee than the one representing your employer. I would recommend doing whatever it takes to keep this from getting to a formal discrimination claim because right now, your chances of winning aren't very high IMO. Reinstate the employee, settle money on the employee, fire the hire-up; whatever it takes. But if this goes to the EEOC and eventually to court, you're toast.

---

I think that I would fire the higher up anyway. Any higher up who targets an employee just because they questioned a decision is a poor person to be in any kind of management position. What's more, I cannot see how you could reinstate the employee without firing the higher up. It would create a toxic work environment otherwise.

Reinstating the employee is problematic in a number of ways, not the least of which is that once done, he will be practically bulletproof. But it would be less problematic if the higher up is fired. I agree with you that that *should* be done anyway. But I suspect that's not within the control of our OP.

the plaintiff has an attorney, you need to as well. do what your attorney says if you already have one.

^^^This.

On the other board I suggested you call your corporate counsel tomorrow. I suggest you make it the first thing you do tomorrow at 9:00 am.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Let's put it this way.

Your former employee wouldn't have to work very hard to show a prima facie case. I told you on the other forum where I've seen this question that I'd rather be the attorney representing the employee than the one representing your employer. I would recommend doing whatever it takes to keep this from getting to a formal discrimination claim because right now, your chances of winning aren't very high IMO. Reinstate the employee, settle money on the employee, fire the hire-up; whatever it takes. But if this goes to the EEOC and eventually to court, you're toast.

---

The minority employee was discharged for performance issues, though we didn't indicate a reason in the termination letter.

The only documentation we have of the minority employee's performance issues is the mid-year evaluation. However, the minority employee was the only one subject to a mid-year performance review. None of the other white staff in the department received a mid-year performance evaluation.

The minority employee was the only one who received a mid-year performance evaluation because he was the only who showed performance lapses necessitating it.

Is this a valid defense?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Reinstating the employee is problematic in a number of ways, not the least of which is that once done, he will be practically bulletproof. But it would be less problematic if the higher up is fired. I agree with you that that *should* be done anyway. But I suspect that's not within the control of our OP.

---

His attorney is asking us to re-hire the employee, either in his previous role or to transfer him to a different department.

We were initially open to transferring him to a different department. The head of that department was open to taking him, but the higher-up intervened and didn't want it to happen.

If this goes to mediation what kind of settlement are we looking at? What about litigation? Should we just allow for reinstatement and avoid the legal headache and monetary payment? The employee is generally well-liked by all but this one individual.

We also spent about $50k in just recruiting the guy, and will like spend another $50k to find a replacement. If he's willing to come back why not?

The minority employee was discharged for performance issues, though we didn't indicate a reason in the termination letter.

The only documentation we have of the minority employee's performance issues is the mid-year evaluation. However, the minority employee was the only one subject to a mid-year performance review. None of the other white staff in the department received a mid-year performance evaluation.

The minority employee was the only one who received a mid-year performance evaluation because he was the only who showed performance lapses necessitating it.

Is this a valid defense?

Not really. I'd give it 50/50 at best. Try this as your defense and you'd better be prepared to show documentation that not a single Caucasian employee had a single instance of poor performance all year; that every single one of them was perfect all the way down the line.

And I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying don't take him back. I'm saying you want to be prepared for all the potential issues of doing so.

Here is the problem in a nutshell: you cannot fire an employee because of his/her race (among other characteristics) even though employment in pretty much every state is at will. When terminating an employee, the law doesn’t require lots of documentation, progressive discipline, or any of that but an employer who doesn’t do those sorts of things to lay a good trail of evidence to show that the termination was for some reason other than illegal discrimination is put in a bad spot when an employee alleges that the reason was for illegal discrimination. When that employee is the only person of that race in the department or company and he or she gets canned that’s just asking for an illegal discrimination claim if the employer cannot show that race was not the reason for the termination. A jury is allowed to infer that race is the reason when the employer’s defense effectively is “well, we didn’t fire him because of his race but we can’t really explain why we fired him.”

An employee who had been performing satisfactorily and then gets fired all of the sudden for a claimed performance issue with no documentation at all to back that up — no warnings, no discussions of the problem, no efforts at giving him a chance to improve, etc. — is a problem because it may well appear to a jury that the claimed performance problem that the company didn’t bother to document or try to fix wasn’t the real reason for termination, and that will then lead the jury to think that race may have been the real reason if it doesn’t believe the reason the company offered.

I suggest your company contact a good employment law attorney ASAP to do figure out what its exposure is and how to deal with it. I also suggest the company consult that lawyer for procedures to put in place on how employees will be disciplined and terminated to ensure that the company can protect itself against illegal discrimination problems. Part of that procedure should be training all managers about illegal discrimination and how to prevent it. The company needs to make that a priority; companies that do not consistently emphasize that they will not tolerate illegal discrimination are the ones that will get burned at some point when some manager does some bonehead move that opens up the company to huge liability for illegal discrimination.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

When that employee is the only person of that race in the department or company and he or she gets canned that’s just asking for an illegal discrimination claim if the employer cannot show that race was not the reason for the termination. A jury is allowed to infer that race is the reason when the employer’s defense effectively is “well, we didn't fire him because of his race but we can't really explain why we fired him.”

An employee who had been performing satisfactorily and then gets fired all of the sudden for a claimed performance issue with no documentation at all to back that up — no warnings, no discussions of the problem, no efforts at giving him a chance to improve, etc. — is a problem because it may well appear to a jury that the claimed performance problem that the company didn’t bother to document or try to fix wasn’t the real reason for termination, and that will then lead the jury to think that race may have been the real reason if it doesn’t believe the reason the company offered.

---

We do have one piece of documentation and that is the mid-year evaluation. The mid-year evaluation contains documentation of performance lapses. However, the mid-year evaluation was drafted by the higher up who didn't like him (not his immediate supervisor who did the annual performance review) with feedback from his immediate supervisor and another supervisor. It may be interpreted as subjective as there's no numerical scoring on a scale as with our annual performance review. There's also no date on the mid-year evaluation and no signature from the supervisor, HR or any higher ups. It also does not have any statements about disciplinary consequences (ie. "up to and including termination"), no points for improvement, and no timeline for improvement. He was also the only one in the department to receive a mid-year evaluation.

I'm not sure if the higher-up is racist. It's more likely that said individual didn't like the minority employee on a personal basis due to an argument with him months earlier, and simply wanted an excuse to get rid of him. Our reason for termination is performance. Our fear the courts may infer racial discrimination due to disparate treatment and disparate impact since he's the only minority in the department and the only one to be discharged.

What should we do?

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

We also spent about $50k in just recruiting the guy, and will like spend another $50k to find a replacement. If he's willing to come back why not?

---

because it pretty much proves his claim that his performance was not the basis for termination. If he deserved to be canned then why now is he worthy of hiring back?

plus it nullifies the superiors authority. Re-hiring the guy means the superior does not have the authority to take actions like this. If guy is re-hired the superiors authority to act should be addressed. Maybe he shouldn't have the authority to fire without some over sight by others.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

because it pretty much proves his claim that his performance was not the basis for termination. If he deserved to be canned then why now is he worthy of hiring back?

plus it nullifies the superiors authority. Re-hiring the guy means the superior does not have the authority to take actions like this. If guy is re-hired the superiors authority to act should be addressed. Maybe he shouldn't have the authority to fire without some over sight by others.

---

Again, when the termination decision was made we looked into transferring him to a different department (although this can be used as evidence that his performance wasn't really that bad, and it was just a personality conflict). The head of that department was open to taking him, but the higher-up intervened and didn't want it to happen.

Yes, I allowed the decision. We are in at-will state so we thought it was fine. Unfortunately we failed to consider the minority/protected class angle. In hindsight we may have erred in not getting the full story from the employee's side, and not building a big enough case with respect to documentation. I was relying on at-will employment to allow for it. Now I'm worried about a potential wrongful termination/racial discrimination lawsuit.

The higher-up is new to the company and has been with the company for less time than the minority employee. Would you recommend speaking to the higher-up to rescind the decision and allow reinstatement?

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

Would you recommend speaking to the higher-up to rescind the decision and allow reinstatement?

---

Really, no one here can tell you what the right solution is. I don’t have all the facts and I don’t really know anything about your company. All I’ve got is the little bit that you’ve said here. What the company needs to do is consult an employment law attorney and then decide what to do after hearing what risks the company has if the employee sues and what the options are that may minimize those risks. If your company really doesn’t want the guy working there, then your company may want to explore other options that do not involve reinstatement.

I wouldn't say a word the the higher up employee until you speak with the corporate counsel


and if you have the power to control this higher up employee, why would you need him to rescind anything? You may be best served by hanging him out to dry, so to speak. His best purpose right now may be as a sacrificial lamb to appease the EEOC gods.


Speak with the company lawyer. That is your best and smartest direction. Do not do anything, including having discussions with the fired employee, his attorney, or the superior employee that fired him until you speak with the company's legal advisor.

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

The minority employee was discharged for performance issues, though we didn't indicate a reason in the termination letter.

The only documentation we have of the minority employee's performance issues is the mid-year evaluation. However, the minority employee was the only one subject to a mid-year performance review. None of the other white staff in the department received a mid-year performance evaluation.

The minority employee was the only one who received a mid-year performance evaluation because he was the only who showed performance lapses necessitating it.

Is this a valid defense?

- - - Updated - - -



His attorney is asking us to re-hire the employee, either in his previous role or to transfer him to a different department.

We were initially open to transferring him to a different department. The head of that department was open to taking him, but the higher-up intervened and didn't want it to happen.

If this goes to mediation what kind of settlement are we looking at? What about litigation? Should we just allow for reinstatement and avoid the legal headache and monetary payment? The employee is generally well-liked by all but this one individual.

We also spent about $50k in just recruiting the guy, and will like spend another $50k to find a replacement. If he's willing to come back why not?

---

The bolded is just one more reason why I think that the higher up should be fired. It shows that he puts his ego above the best interests of the company.

We do have one piece of documentation and that is the mid-year evaluation. The mid-year evaluation contains documentation of performance lapses. However, the mid-year evaluation was drafted by the higher up who didn't like him (not his immediate supervisor who did the annual performance review) with feedback from his immediate supervisor and another supervisor. t may be interpreted as subjective as there's no numerical scoring on a scale as with our annual performance review. There's also no date on the mid-year evaluation and no signature from the supervisor, HR or any higher ups. It also does not have any statements about disciplinary consequences (ie. "up to and including termination"), no points for improvement, and no timeline for improvement. He was also the only one in the department to receive a mid-year evaluation.

So, one and only one employee received a mid-year eval; that mid-year eval is the only documentation of any performance issues, and it was drafted by the person who wanted him fired? It's not dated, it doesn't follow the format of your usual evals, it's not signed, and from the sounds of things no one even knew about it?

You seriously can't see how that is going to look if those facts are ever put in front of a judge or jury?

And you seriously do not understand what would happen if you hire him back at this point? Seriously??? You have him back, he knows he owns you and knows you're afraid of him and he doesn't have to do jack squat for the rest of his employment there because he can just threaten to sue again. Morale will plummet like a rock as your other employees watch this protected bird get paid to basically do whatever he pleases, while they are still expected to work and have at least satisfactory performance. I worked for an agency where there were a few of these supposedly "bullet proof" protected class folk who had sued their employer and been reinstated. It was no fun to deal with any of them and the agency very rarely ever got any meaningful work from them again.

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

We also spent about $50k in just recruiting the guy, and will like spend another $50k to find a replacement.

---

This is the problem I'm having with the story.

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

We are in at-will state so we thought it was fine.

---

You were willing to piss away $100K for what? A personality conflict. Even if it wasn't motivated by discrimination, where does any company get away throwing away that kind of money because they don't like someone? Sure, you can do it, but come on, that's a lot of money to waste just to prove a point.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

We do have one piece of documentation and that is the mid-year evaluation. The mid-year evaluation contains documentation of performance lapses. However, the mid-year evaluation was drafted by the higher up who didn't like him (not his immediate supervisor who did the annual performance review) with feedback from his immediate supervisor and another supervisor. t may be interpreted as subjective as there's no numerical scoring on a scale as with our annual performance review. There's also no date on the mid-year evaluation and no signature from the supervisor, HR or any higher ups. It also does not have any statements about disciplinary consequences (ie. "up to and including termination"), no points for improvement, and no timeline for improvement. He was also the only one in the department to receive a mid-year evaluation.

So, one and only one employee received a mid-year eval; that mid-year eval is the only documentation of any performance issues, and it was drafted by the person who wanted him fired? It's not dated, it doesn't follow the format of your usual evals, it's not signed, and from the sounds of things no one even knew about it?

You seriously can't see how that is going to look if those facts are ever put in front of a judge or jury?

---

"In order to establish a prima facie case against his or her employer, a terminated person alleging discrimination must be able to show that:

(1) he or she is a member of a protected class (i.e. age, gender, race, etc.);
(2) he or she was performing the job at a level that met his or her employer’s legitimate expectations;
(3) he or she was nevertheless fired; and
(4) the employer sought someone else to perform his or her functions after he or she was terminated."

Would the mid-year evaluation with documented performance issues suffice in disproving (2)?

It was asked either directly or implied;

is this the only employee that has any performance issues? It makes it quite suspicious that this is the only employee that has ever deserved a mid year evaluation. If so congratulations on having the very best staff ever.

Otherwise it it is suspicious that the black guy (presumption on my part) is the only one to ever receive a mid year evaluation.


the mid year evaluation might make it even worse if no others have ever been given one. It looks like he was being singied out for some reason and since you have dealt with performance issues with all the white guy's without a mid year evaluation, guess what it looks like?

Okay, since you seem to need it spelled out in simple words:

Would the mid-year evaluation with documented performance issues suffice in disproving (2)?

No. The mid-year evaluation with documented performance issues, the way you have described it, would not even come close to suffice in disproving (2).

Not. Even. Close.

Is that now quite clear to you?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

It was asked either directly or implied;

is this the only employee that has any performance issues? It makes it quite suspicious that this is the only employee that has ever deserved a mid year evaluation. If so congratulations on having the very best staff ever.

Otherwise it it is suspicious that the black guy (presumption on my part) is the only one to ever receive a mid year evaluation.


the mid year evaluation might make it even worse if no others have ever been given one. It looks like he was being singied out for some reason and since you have dealt with performance issues with all the white guy's without a mid year evaluation, guess what it looks like?

---

OK, but how is this any different from a written warning given to a poorly performing employee to create a paper trail for subsequent dismissal?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Okay, since you seem to need it spelled out in simple words:

Would the mid-year evaluation with documented performance issues suffice in disproving (2)?

No. The mid-year evaluation with documented performance issues, the way you have described it, would not even come close to suffice in disproving (2).

Not. Even. Close.

Is that now quite clear to you?

---

"The fact that the employee may have met expectations in the past is irrelevant; she must show that she was meeting expectations at the time of her termination."

The mid-year evaluation indicates the employee was not meeting expectations. Could you please elaborate as to why (2) is not disproved then?

Quote:

---

OK, but how is this any different from a written warning given to a poorly performing employee to create a paper trail for subsequent dismissal?

---

its not but since this is the only guy that it has ever happened to, either there was a paradigm shift in disciplinary actions where he was the first guy to receive one (where if there have been none since either you have the perfect work force or the claim becomes obviously false) or it shows this guy was picked on for some reason other than his performance. Is something other than performance documented? If not, it sure looks a lot like discrimination.

The mid-year evaluation only proves that one was written. It doesn't prove that it was actually true, or maybe even given to the former employee. If this makes it's way to court, the fact finder is the one that will make that decision, and you may not like it.

I already did. More than once. If you're incapable of understanding the difference between a legitimate performance appraisal and the travesty that you've described, I don't know how to help you.

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

OK, but how is this any different from a written warning given to a poorly performing employee to create a paper trail for subsequent dismissal?

- - - Updated - - -



"The fact that the employee may have met expectations in the past is irrelevant; she must show that she was meeting expectations at the time of her termination."

The mid-year evaluation indicates the employee was not meeting expectations. Could you please elaborate as to why (2) is not disproved then?

---

Look, you are asking the same questions over and over again and getting the same answers.

Your company has a serious problem. Your company needs an attorney on board to handle the problem. The situation as you describe it is very damning for your company. You allowed a new higher up with an ego problem to cause this problem for your company.

See an attorney first thing tomorrow morning. Make sure that you explain the problem the same way that you explained it here, so that you do not accidentally leave something out.

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

Would the mid-year evaluation with documented performance issues suffice in disproving (2)[/b]?

---

It would if that was the same evaluation process ALL employees were subjected to. But if the minority employee is the only one to be given that evaluation process and that then leads to his/her dismissal then you still have a serious illegal discrimination problem. An employer cannot treat employees differently because of race. Subjecting employees of one race to a different evaluation process than employees of other races is still illegal discrimination. That reinforces the employee’s claim of discrimination, not help the company defend against it.

Hopefully you can now begin to see why companies that are serious about avoiding illegal discrimination claims have a real disciplinary process in place that applies to all employees equally and that allows for solid documentation of real performance issues. When you do things by making it up as you go along you open yourself up to illegal discrimination claims.

Update: We talked to the higher-up to get the full story. Several months ago, the minority employee questioned a decision of the higher-up which the higher-up perceived as insubordination (incidentally, two of his white coworkers were also involved in the same insubordination incident but they were not given a subsequent mid-year evaluation or later terminated).

The higher-up wanted to get rid of him but needed valid justification. The higher-up saw performance lapses and the minority employee was given a mid-year evaluation to shape up (with written feedback from the immediate supervisor and another manager). He was the only one to receive a mid-year evaluation, with no prior or subsequent written warning or documentation of feedback. There's no numerical scoring on a scale as with our annual performance review, no date, no mention of disciplinary consequences, no timeline and no signature from the supervisor, HR or any higher ups.

The way it was executed was very sloppy. From the advice given here it appears that the company is at significant risk for a racial discrimination suit as by coincidence he happened to be the only minority in the department. It seems the minority employee's immediate supervisor was just as fearful of incurring their wrath and went along with it for fear of being disciplined for insubordination as well.

For those whose suggestion is to terminate the higher-up, the higher-up has been with the company for less than a year (less time than the minority employee and immediate supervisor). The higher-up wasn't involved in hiring the minority employee. And isn't HR just as culpable in allowing this to proceed without adequate documentation and placing the company at legal risk?

There is no "by coincidence" here.

None.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

There is no "by coincidence" here.

None.

---

Not so sure. Never heard the higher-up say anything racist. It was a personality conflict with one individual who happened to be the only non-white in the department.

So three employees are guilty of the same action yet two white employees are not punished yet one minority employee is.

You yourself have spelled it out for yourself; he wanted to fire the one guy, who happened to be a minority yet not only not fire the other two but to not even subject them to the same scrutiny and punishment. While I was not thoroughly convinced it was illegal discrimination before, with this new info there is simply no question it is.

I think you really need to take the blinders off and dump the chump who may cost your company a small fortune.

I have a suspicion you are the "higher up" employee. Not only are you ignoring what is right in front of your face you are now trying to lay the blame elsewhere. Why would anybody in a position of authority in a company continue to protect somebody that really really appears to have put your butt in a sling.

Thank you for your feedback. Again, I don't know if the higher-up is racist as I've never heard the higher-up say racist things. It was a personality conflict with one individual who happened to be the only non-white employee in the department, coupled with a series of circumstantial actions that may lead the courts to infer racial discrimination as the prime motive and a lack of oversight by HR.

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

Not so sure. Never heard the higher-up say anything racist. It was a personality conflict with one individual who happened to be the only non-white in the department.

---

Seriously? A group of very knowledgeable people, some of whom work with HR issues every day, don't believe it's a coincidence. That same group of people is already warning you and trying to prepare you for what might be a devastating result.

What are the chances of us all being wrong?

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

Not so sure. Never heard the higher-up say anything racist. It was a personality conflict with one individual who happened to be the only non-white in the department.

---

He might not be a “racist” (however you might define the term). Doesn’t matter. What does matter is that your posts clearly show that the minority employee was treated differently than the white employees who did the same thing and as a result of that differing treatment the minority employee is fired. That just screams illegal race discrimination. This upper level manager has created a situation in which he company may end up owing a large amount of damages as a result of, at best, being incredibly blind to the discriminatory nature of his actions. Companies can’t really afford to keep managers that are that clueless. Senior executives should know better than this.

With the facts you've presented, you will never in a million years get anyone to believe that this was not discrimination. Nor does your attempt to shift blame to HR lessen the company's liability one whit. I'm not going to go into the reasons why HR is likely not responsible because you're so far in denial, it would be a waste of time.

You have heard from lawyers, experienced HR people, and lay people, all of whom have told you exactly the same thing; your employer is toast. You need your legal counsel involved. Take that advice or leave it but when your company ends up paying many, many thousands of dollars out and you as the immediate manager are out on the street without a job, just remember; you heard it here first.

My instinct is that there would need to be proof of racial injustice in order for it to hold. Evidence would be lacking for the other side. There may be paperwork missing on our end internally, but fact of the matter is that you don't really need a reason to fire somebody in a company. You can basically just do it if they don't fit. Who cares if they're a minority? Still have to get along.

I do not know of any legal ramifications of firing somebody because they don't fit the mold. So in order to go against that, the person making the accusation would have to prove that there were racial tensions - whether that be through eyewitness account or correspondence. Chances are they don't have any form of proof to push their case.

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

My instinct is that there would need to be proof of racial injustice in order for it to hold. Evidence would be lacking for the other side. There may be paperwork missing on our end internally, but fact of the matter is that you don't really need a reason to fire somebody in a company. You can basically just do it if they don't fit. Who cares if they're a minority? Still have to get along.

---

Proof isn't a necessity. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....the court can reasonably conclude it is a duck. Yes, you are allowed to fire someone for no real reason but not if it is in violation of anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC cares if it's a minority if they are treated differently than others, which is what happened here.

Quote:

---

Quoting throwaway64759

---

I do not know of any legal ramifications of firing somebody because they don't fit the mold. So in order to go against that, the person making the accusation would have to prove that there were racial tensions - whether that be through eyewitness account or correspondence. Chances are they don't have any form of proof to push their case.

---

They don't have to necessarily prove there were racial tensions. All they have to prove is that they were treated differently than non-minority workers, which is what happened here, and they are likely to win. It helps to be able to say conclusively that it was because of their race but there are clever bigots out there so the law makes allowances.