When you encounter race or national origin discrimination at work and it becomes necessary to pursue justice through the civil court system, you have several crucial steps ahead of you. First, you must establish a “prima facie case” of discrimination. After your employer gives its purported reason for punishing you, you have to prove “pretext,” which is that the legitimate reason your employer presented was not the real reason (or at least not the sole one) for its actions and that discrimination actually colored its decision-making. Clearing these hurdles can be complicated and involves producing specific forms of evidence. To ensure that your case has what it needs for success, be sure to retain legal representation from an experienced New York race discrimination lawyer.
The “prima facie case” requirement is a piece composed of four sub-parts. They involve demonstrating that you are a “member of a protected class,” (2) were “qualified for [your] position,” (3) “suffered an adverse employment action,” and (4) that “the adverse action took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.”
The “pretext” requirement involves establishing that your employer, when presenting its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for punishing you, was not truthful or, at least, did not disclose the whole truth. There are many ways to do this and a recent national origin discrimination case from here in Manhattan shows one very effective one: shifts, inconsistencies, or conflicts in the employer’s purported reason for taking action against you.
In this recent case, S.L. was a project manager working for a construction contractor from Queens. He was also a man of Chinese origin. Less than two months after S.L. started, the employer fired him. During S.L.’s final meeting with the company’s principal, the principal allegedly told the manager that he made too many mistakes and that the firm needed a project manager with more experience managing “high-end residential” projects.
A Different Setting... and a Different Explanation
However, the principal's story changed after the manager sued and his legal team deposed the man. During the deposition, the principal pointed to a supposed safety issue as the reason for the manager’s dismissal. Allegedly, about two weeks after S.L. started, a subordinate worker was at the site while under the influence of drugs. S.L.’s failure to identify the problem and bring it to the principal’s attention constituted a major safety error requiring termination, according to the principal’s testimony. However, despite this allegedly serious safety lapse by S.L., the employer kept him at the same worksite for three more weeks.
The project manager presented to the court these shifting stories. The court concluded that the reasoning the project manager received at the time of his firing conflicted with the reasoning offered in the deposition. That inconsistency was enough to satisfy the law’s pretext requirement. Based on that clear conflict, a reasonable “jury could readily find, from [the principal’s] own words, that the reasons given to Plaintiff for the termination of his employment were not the real reasons for that action.”
The court also pointed out that, when an employer presents shifting or inconsistent explanations for its adverse action, a jury is permitted to find that neither of the employer’s stated reasons was genuine. In S.L.’s case, that meant a reasonable jury could decide that neither the asserted safety issue nor the project manager’s purported performance problems were the real reason the employer fired him.
Other Techniques for Demonstrating Pretext
An employer’s shifting or inconsistent explanation for its actions is one good way to demonstrate pretext, but it is far from the only one. Showing that your employer made inaccurate statements to a governmental agency (like the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the New York Division on Human Rights) is also strong evidence of pretext. Additionally, if your employer asserts a reason but has no documentation to back it up (like firing you for receiving too many customer complaints but having no written record of any customer complaints against you,) that can establish pretext. Other ways can include showing that the employer failed to follow its policies and procedures or establishing that a colleague from outside your protected group was treated much more favorably despite committing almost the exact same violation that got you fired (or otherwise punished.)
Discrimination based on national origin or ethnicity is illegal in New York. If you have encountered this sort of discrimination at work, you may be entitled to a civil judgment and an award of compensation. The skilled New York national origin discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates are here to help you every step of the way as you navigate the civil litigation process. From pre-trial to judgment or settlement, we will advise you knowledgeably and advocate for you zealously to make sure you get justice. Contact us online or at (833) 529-3476 to set up a free and confidential consultation and learn more about your options.