Learn & Network With More Than 500 Senior Executives at the 2014 DiversityInc Fall Event Series October 21 - 22 | NYC

7 CEOs Confirmed! 

Register Now

Supervisor Slammed for ‘Terrorist’ Slur to Muslim Employee

Severe settlement conditions for supervisor. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently settled a religion, race and national-origin case, EEOC v. Pace Services LP, which alleged that the supervisor of a Muslim employee of East Indian origin repeatedly called him “terrorist,” “Osama” and “al-Qaeda.” The supervisor also used—and allowed other workers to use—racial epithets toward several Black and Latino employees. The plaintiff complained to no avail and then was fired after he complained. The settlement provides $123,000 to the 14 employees who were impacted. It also stipulates that the supervisor will be barred from employment by the Houston-area construction company and will never receive a positive reference for other jobs. In addition, the EEOC will monitor the company for two years (S.D. Texas, 2010). Read Muslims & Stereotypes: Do They Really Hate Us?

Corporate executive sacked for misuse of company credit cards, not age.  An insurance-company vice president, who was older than 50, gave company-expensed credit cards to his wife and mistress, both of whom used them to make personal purchases. The company discovered this, demanded $15,000 repayment for unauthorized personal use and then fired the executive. The vice president’s replacement was 28 years old. In McLain v. Liberty National Ins. (11th Cir., 2010), the fired vice president sued for age discrimination. But the court dismissed the case, finding that his credit-card misuse was a valid reason for the discharge. 

Read more about corporate accountability, leadership and values among the nation’s most progressive companies. Go to www.BestPractices.DiversityInc.com.

Refusal to participate in discrimination investigation nixes case. An employee filed several internal organizational complaints of age discrimination. Subsequently, he was believed to have violated a security rule, spending excessive unexplained time in the computer room. He also repeatedly refused to attend meetings or answer questions in the investigation of the matter, and then he was fired. In Wood v. Summit County Fiscal Office (6th Cir., 2010), the plaintiff sued for age discrimination and retaliation. The court found that his refusal to participate in the investigation was insubordination and a valid reason for discharge. Whether or not the security charges were motivated by retaliation for his earlier age-discrimination complaints, he had a duty to follow the employer’s investigation policy. Bottom line: A plaintiff can challenge unfair discipline or discharge but must usually follow the process through to the end in order to preserve the right to sue.

Bob Gregg, partner in Boardman Law Firm, shares his roundup of diversity-related legal issues. He can be reached at rgregg@boardmanlawfirm.com.

Tags:

3 Comments

  • Anonymous

    My family brought me to the US from Cuba in 1960, escaping the Marxist dictatorship of the Castro brothers. Every so often, schoolmates, and, later, work mates would tease by calling me a “commie.” That wasn’t bias – it was ignorance, as is the behavior of the supervisor who called an East Indian “Al Qaeda.” The company was foolish not to heed the warnings of the plaintiff – it’s too bad it had to come to a lawsuit… but this is not a case of “bias” (the guy was not a ‘terrorist’) but of supervisor stupidity.

  • In today;s climate, it is refreshing to see this case being taken seriously. It is not “stupid or foolish ” behaviors that makes one think it is okay to allow any form of racism to continue. Too often verbal attacks are brushed off as one person’s bad behavior.. In this case, it is a manifestation of systemic racism that rears it’s ugly head in many forms. Tthe court case was just. Additionally, it is sad that it takes a lawful stance or lost of income for this incident to be taken seriously, the supervisor was just the scapegoat. This is not the first time the court has sent this message of no tolearance for this behavior. What will it take for this serious message to change the culture, which is still acceptable by some in many places?

  • This is very timely. I just heard 2 co-workers “racially teasing” each other. This reminds me to explain to them they do now work in a vacuum. Even if they use humor, someone else could hear and be offended by what is said.

Leave a Reply


Close

Receive DiversityInc Newsletters and Alerts