1

Mia Myers

MGT 4110

Prof. Gilmore

5 February 2019

Essay Exam 1

What legal issues existed ​at the time the charge was filed with the EEOC​?

One legal issue that existed at the time the charge was filed was the disparate

treatment the accountant faced in the company’s decision to hire a male over her for the

posted assistant controller position. The accountant in question is female, so the

decision to hire a male instead of female could cause concern for a gender

discrimination case. Another legal issue that could be seen at the time the initial charge

was filed is the age difference between the accountant and the male. The accountant at

the time is 56, and the male at the time is 48. The difference between the two

candidates is eight years, making this case applicable to an age discrimination suit. The

threshold to pass for a plausible age discrimination suit is approximated to be any

difference that is more than six years, which was found in the case ​Blizzard v. Marion

Technical College ​(No. 3:09-cv-1643 Northern District Ohio) and is less than the current

difference between the two candidates.

 2

Would the accountant be able to establish a prima facie case of federal age

and/or gender discrimination? EXPLAIN.

A prima facie case is defined by Walsh as “a showing by the plaintiff that

discrimination is a plausible explanation for an adverse employment action” (p. 755). In

order to establish a prima facie case of federal age and/or gender discrimination, the

plaintiff must show

a) The protected class characteristic(s) of the plaintiff relevant to the case.

b) That the employment opportunity was applied for

c) That the employment opportunity was available.

d) That the plaintiff was qualified for the employment opportunity.

e) That the plaintiff was denied the employment opportunity

f) That the employer continued to consider candidates for the employment

opportunity or selected someone with contrasting protected class characteristics.

(p. 82).

The accountant showed article A with her age of 56 and her status as a female.

Articles B and C are shown by the accountant’s panel interview with company

executives. Article C is also shown by the public posting of the job position. Article D

could not be shown, as the job posting was for a candidate that was a CPA, which the

accountant in question is not. Article E is evident in that the male accountant was

chosen over the female. Article F is shown by the employer hiring someone of the male

gender, which is a contrasting protected class characteristics.

 3

Because article D could not be shown, the accountant is not able to establish a prima

facie case of disparate treatment.

If the accountant had been able to establish a prima facie case for a gender

discrimination, the defendant would then have to show evidence that the practice is job

related and consistent with business necessity. If the accountant established a case for

age discrimination, according to the powerpoints, “Defendant must only show

challenged practice is a reasonable factor other than age” (slide 35).

If the accountant timely filed an amended charge with the EEOC alleging

retaliation, would she be able to establish a prima facie case based upon her

termination?

If the accountant timely filed an amended charge with the EEOC alleging

retaliation along with the initial charge of gender/age discrimination, the steps she would

have to show to establish a prima facie case are, according to Walsh (2019),

a) The plaintiff engaged in protected activity (i.e., participated in enforcement

procedures or otherwise used reasonable means to oppose discrimination).

b) The plaintiff was subjected to a materially adverse action.

c) There is a causal link between engaging in the protected activity and the

materially adverse action taken by the employer. (​ p. 98).

The plaintiff satisfies article A, engaging in a protected activity, because

participating in an EEOC claim is a protected activity related to civil rights in

 4

employment (Watson, p. 97). Article B, where the plaintiff was subjected to a materially

adverse action, is also satisfied because the plaintiff was fired, which is a materially

adverse action.

The final article, a causal link between engaging in the protected activity and the

action taken by the employer, is shown by the fact that the reason for the accountant’s

firing--having an electronic copy of some pages of the company’s financial records--was

discovered during the EEOC’s investigation. Having the financial records is not a

fireable action because the company had no policy at that time on keeping those

records, and the accountant was not told against keeping said information. The

accountant should not have been fired for having an electronic copy of the financial

records for the stated reasons; this establishes that the filing of the EEOC claim and its

investigation were linked to the accountant’s loss of her job.

In this case, the accountant would be able to successfully establish a prima facie

case because she satisfies all three of the requirements of establishment.

If so, would she be able to establish pretext if the company could meet its burden
of articulating a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for her termination? EXPLAIN.

Pretext is defined by Walsh (2019) as “the underlying premise that employment

decisions are made for either discriminatory or lawful reasons” (p. 755). Once the

plaintiff has been able to establish a prima facie case, as this case has, the employer

can dispute the claim by providing a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action, in

this case being fired. If the company can meet its burden of articulating a legitimate,
 5

non-retaliatory reason for the termination of the accountant, the plaintiff must rebut

these claims by

a) Providing evidence that sheds doubt on the credibility of the employer’s

claimed motive and/or

b) Providing other evidence that supports the claim that retaliation is the most

likely explanation for the adverse action​ (p. 98).

The plaintiff can provide evidence that sheds doubt on the employer’s credibility

by proving that the company’s stated reason for her firing, possessing an electronic

copy of the company’s financial records, was unfair and not the true reason. The

company did not have a policy on employees having pages of the company’s

confidential financial records, and the plaintiff had not been told that she could not keep

the information. To fire an employee for having such information when the information

was not prohibited to have is an erroneous reason to terminate an employee. The

accountant in this case was fired for acting within the stated company policies and not

doing anything adverse to them; the accountant should not have been fired for the

company’s stated reason.

In this case, the accountant would be able to establish pretext and therefore win

her case of retaliation.