Executive Order addressing preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation issued

On January 20, 2021, the President of the United States, Joseph R. Biden Jr., issued a number of Executive Orders including an Executive Order stating that that gay and transgender people are protected against discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits unlawful discrimination “because of sex.”

The Order states that "This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

Click here to access this Executive Order.

Courts apply the substantial evidence standard when considering a challenge to the penalty imposed following a disciplinary action

A police detective [Plaintiff] was terminated from his position after being found guilty of possessing and ingesting methamphetamine. The Appellate Division found that there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the finding that Petitioner possessed and ingested methamphetamine.

Noting that "[T]hree samples of hair from [Plaintiff's] [leg] were subjected to repeated testing by independent laboratories and yielded positive results," the court opined that to the extent there were conflicting expert opinions as to the efficacy of drug testing using hair, as well as character witness testimony tending to show that petitioner did not use drugs, "courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made" by the hearing officer to accept or reject particular testimony.

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal from his position, the Appellate Division said it found "no grounds" to vacate the penalty as "[t]he [appointing authority's] dismissal of a police officer for using illegal drugs is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness."

Rejecting Petitioner's contention that the employer "failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard," the Appellate Division observed that its review "is limited to a consideration of whether [the penalty imposed] was supported by substantial evidence upon the whole record," citing 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc., 45 NY2d at 181.

Click here to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision

 

Applying the three-step burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. followed where the plaintiff lacks direct evidence of discriminatory conduct

Under the McDonnell Douglas Corporation* three-step shifting framework used in evaluating a Title VII discrimination complaints, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which then shifts the burden to the employer to come forward with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer provides such a justification, the plaintiff must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employer’s explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination.

In this case the U. S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, assuming that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination within the meaning of Title VII, found that the record showed that the employer "proffered legitimate reasons for the various employment actions" the Plaintiff challenged as discriminatory and that the Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could find pretext.

Citing Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, the Circuit Court explained that at the third step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court's task is to “examin[e] the entire record,” using a case-specific approach, “to determine whether the plaintiff could satisfy his ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.” To satisfy this requirement, the plaintiff must produce enough evidence "to support a rational finding not only that the employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons were false but also 'that more likely than not discrimination was the real reason for the' employment actions."

Finding that the overall record showed that:

1. Plaintiff’s subordinates lodged repeated complaints against him over the course of several years;

2. Plaintiff was consistently combative and defiant toward his superiors; and

3. Plaintiff was unwilling to incorporate constructive feedback in response to his performance reviews over that time.

The Circuit Court opined that assuming it could be argued that Plaintiff in this action presented some evidence of pretext, "the record, taken as a whole, does not permit a reasonable trier of fact to find that 'the most likely alternative explanation' for his termination was [unlawful] discrimination."

Noting that a plaintiff is not guaranteed a trial merely because he can satisfy a prima facie case and can adduce “evidence that arguably would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that [the employer’s] explanation . . . is false”, in this instance Plaintiff failed to demonstrate “weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for its action.”

In the words of the court, "there can be no question that [the Employer] proffered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for disciplining and ultimately terminating [Plaintiff]" and based on the totality of the record, the Circuit Court of Appeals said it agreed with the federal district court that "a rational jury could not find that retaliation was the but-for cause of the actions taken against [Plaintiff]."

* McDonnell Douglas Corp.v. Green, 411 U.S. 792.

Click here to access the text of the decision.