INSIDE
America's Work Ethic: How Hard Do We Really Work? Terminating Employees: Ease the Pain NLRB Allows Temps to Join Unions Woman Not Hired Because She Valued Family Life Too Much Notes on Recent NLRB Decisions Leave for Domestic Violence-Related Services - New Law The Trusted Advisor - Book Review Briefs |
Braun Consulting News See our Archive Pages for Back Issues of Braun Consulting News!
The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision that a law
firm is liable for $300,000 for wrongful discrimination. The law firm
reneged on a job offer to attorney Jill Carmichael because of her gender.
She had worked part-time for the firm from 1989 to 1991 while she was
attending law school. Carmichael claims that in 1991 she left the firm
temporarily to study for the bar exam, and she asked a senior partner to
consider her for a position as associate, and he said he would.
However, after she passed the exam in 1992, she learned that the firm had
hired a male attorney not even licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
She also learned that, at a meeting to discuss her application for an
attorney's position, the senior partner stated that he felt that her
priorities were elsewhere -- with her family -- and that had he known that
she was pregnant at the time he hired her in 1989, he would not have hired
her in the first place.
The Supreme Court noted this was a "mixed motive" case, meaning one in which
an employer has several motives for making an employment decision.
Specifically, the law firm argued that they reneged on their offer because
Carmichael could not commit to then in the manner they required. They argued
her inability to commit to them was because they knew from the time of her
initial interview that she had a small child at home and wanted more
children; they soon after learned that she was pregnant with her second
child.
The Court stated in this mixed motive case, while one of the motives may be
illegitimate, like sex discrimination, the demonstration of a legitimate
reason does not erase the influence of the illegitimate one. In deciding
the case, the Supreme Court noted that employers must shoulder a heavier
load of the burden of proof in such discrimination cases.
Notes on Recent NLRB Decisions
|