Can you be treated unfairly without being discrimminated against? The reason why I asked this question is SCOTUS nominee Sam Alito once precided over a case involving Marriot Hotels, who were been sued by a black women for discrimmination. In her case, she was past over for promotion in favor of a white women, even though she had more senoirity and job experience. Alito decided in favor of Marriot Hotels and said in his decision that, just because you've been treated unfairly doesn't mean you've been discrimminated against.
Serious Question
- Thread starter Decon Frost
- Start date
her unfair treatment might not have been racially based - suppose her boss would have promoted her if she had sex with him or her then it wouldnt be racial discrimination right? without knowing all the details I cant say alito is fucking up although anything gw likes deserves alot of investigation
The case was <u>Beryl Bray vs. Marriott Hotel Corp.</u>, in which the Black plaintiff (Bray) charged that Marriott had discriminated against her for appointing a white woman, Riehle. Bray claimed that she was more qualified than Riehle. The trial court ruled in favor of Marriott, dismissing Bray's case, because she did not present enough evidence to send the case to a jury. (Marriott put forth evidence that it hired Reihle because she was the <u>best qualified</u> candidate and Bray did not have enough evidence to contradict Marriott.Decon Frost said:
Bray appealed and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (where Alito was one of several judges reviewing the case) which ruled in favor of <u>Bray</u> reversing the trial court's ruling and sending the case back to the trial court for a full hearing (trial). Essentially, the court of appeals said that Bray put forth enough evidence to present the case to a jury.
Judge Alito <u>dissented</u> in the case saying that the Court of Appeals should not have reversed and sent the case back to the trial court because, in his opinion, Bray had not met the test under "Prong One" of <u>Fuentes v. Perskie</u>: which says a discrimination plaintiff must show either (1) that the employer's selection process and criteria were filled with such inconsistencies that the employer's claim that it was seeking the “best qualified” candidate was a sham or (2) that the qualifications of the person actually promoted were so much lower than those of her competitors (the person alleging discrimination) that a reasonable judge or jury could disbelieve the claim that the employer was honestly seeking the best qualified candidate.
Stating that he did not believe that Bray had met the burdens of Prong One, Alito said: "It is crucial to understand that prong one is not satisfied if plaintiff merely points to evidence that shows that her qualifications were roughly comparable to those of her competitors. <u>Nor is prong one satisfied by evidence that the employer is not “fair” or “kind” as a general matter.</u>
Alito further stated: "Prong one requires that plaintiff point to evidence from which a reasonable judge or jury can “ disbelieve the employer's articulated reasons” for hiring the person it chose. “Disbelieve” is a higher standard than “disagree.” It is not enough for the evidence to be such that a reasonable judge or jury could disagree with the employer as to which candidate was better qualified. Instead, the evidence must be such that a reasonable judge or jury can infer that the employer was not truly looking for the best qualified candidate, i.e. , that the employer's articulated legitimate reason was pretextual. The burden on a plaintiff seeking to proceed on prong one is difficult, but as Fuentes explains, “'t arises from an inherent tension between the goal of all discrimination law and our society's commitment to free decisionmaking by the private sector in economic affairs.'”
Alito went on to say: "Moving back to the case at hand, Bray's burden under prong one was to show either that there were so many inconsistencies in the criteria and procedures that Marriott used in its selection process that a reasonable judge or jury could infer that the process was a sham and was not aimed at finding the best qualified candidate, or that Bray herself was so much better qualified than Riehle for the job in question that a reasonable judge or jury could conclude that Marriott did not, in fact, honestly believe that Riehle was better qualified than Bray. I dissent because the majority has not come close to holding Bray to her burden under prong one and has thereby impermissibly diluted Fuentes ' prong one requirements for crossing summary judgment.
In other words (rightfully or wrongfully) Alito being a conservative judge (remember the buzz words from the news -- conservative judge means strict interpretation of the law) is saying that he believes that by his fellow judges on the court of appeals reversing and ruling in favor of Bray, the court of appeals is <u>expanding</u> the interpretation of Fuentes -- and allowing her to present less evidence than Fuentes required.
PLEASE NOTE: The above is my brief summary of the Bray case. The case is more complicated than what I have laid out above. I thought I would put some of the salient points out there so at least the discussion would have some background upon which to proceed.
Read the case for yourself at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=971559p
QueEx
Similar threads
