Ninth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment and Rules In Favor of Woman Pilot Who Claimed Gender Discrimination
Filed Under Main Content | Leave a Comment
Under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas test, only a plaintiff’s objectively measurable qualifications, and not subjective criteria, may be considered for summary judgment.
In Nicholson v. Hyannis Air Service (September 2009), the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant employer and decided in favor of a female airline pilot who claimed that her employer discriminated against her on account of her sex when it suspended her from flying certain routes.
Under the United States Supreme Court test in the McDonnell Douglas case, a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment under Title VII must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Specifically, the plaintiff must show that (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably.
The Ninth Circuit explained that only objective criteria may be considered at the first stage of the McDonnell Douglas test, because if subjective criteria are considered in evaluating a plaintiff’s qualifications at step one of the McDonnell Douglas test, the entire burdenshifting scheme collapses into a single inquiry into the truth of a subjective claim regarding a plaintiff’s alleged inadequacies. Thus the first step must focus on the plaintiff’s objectively measurable qualifications. The Ninth Circuit determined that the crew resource management skills that the defendant employer relied upon for summary judgment were a subjective qualification that could not be considered in evaluating a plaintiff’s qualifications at the first step of the McDonnell Douglas test.
The Ninth Circuit found that female pilot met her minimal burden at step three. Irregularities in her disciplinary proceedings provided some evidence that the employer had a discriminatory motive. The disciplinary panel conducted a cursory investigation, and the plaintiff introduced evidence that her employer actively procured letters complaining about her from other pilots.
To establish the fourth and final element of her prima facie case, Nicholson produced evidence that similarly situated male pilots were treated more favorably than she was.
-
The Broderick Law Firm for Victims of Sexual Harassment and Employment Discrimination
Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
Sexual harassment can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, verbal conduct, or physical conduct which affect or interfere with an individual’s work performance or create an offensive work environment for that individual.
Sexual discrimination can include failure to hire or adverse employment action due to gender or sexual orientation. The Broderick Law Firm believes strongly in the fair treatment of all individuals regardless of sex and is committed to representing individuals who have been victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Mr. Broderick has the experience and knowledge necessary to help you recover the damages you are due. He will vigorously pursue your claim of sexual harassment or sexual discrimination to get you a positive result.
“Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment
“Quid Pro Quo” sexual harassment is when a supervisor makes sexual conduct of an employee a condition for employment benefits or advancement or a condition for avoiding adverse employment action or for advancement.
Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment
Hostile work environment sexual harassment occurs when an employee is subject to unwelcome sexual advances or offensive gender-related language or behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive from the perspective of a reasonable person with the same fundamental characteristics as the offended employee.
This type of harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the offended employee’s employment and create an abusive environment. A single instance of sexual harassment in the “hostile work environment” context may be sufficient, but repeated instances increase the severity of the events, so that a reasonable person would be more likely to find the conduct sexually harassing due to its repetition.
In regard to unwanted sexual advances, a complaining employee must generally show that he or she gave notice that the advances are unwelcome.
Although favoritism by a supervisor towards an employee with whom the supervisor is having a consensual sexual affair does not ordinarily constitute harassment of other employees, a pattern of sexual favoritism may constitute a hostile work environment in the event that the message by management is that sexual affairs are a way to get ahead in the workplace.
Retaliation
It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against a sexual harassment or discrimination victim for making a claim of sexual harassment, for participating in a sexual harassment investigation, or for opposing discriminatory practices.