The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, national origin, religion and sex. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967) extended the prohibition against discrimination to age. In the years since, many states and the federal government barred discrimination based disability, pregnancy, citizenship, genetic information and status as a veteran. The characteristic protected by anti-discrimination law, like sex, age, race and veterans' status, are known as “protected classifications.” People who share those characteristics are in a “protected class.”

Two Types of Discrimination - Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment

Laws prohibit discriminatory "treatment," where an employer treats employees in a protected class worse those who are not, and discriminatory "impact," where an employer does not intend to discriminate, but uses an otherwise neutral decision-making process that has a discriminatory effect. Examples include a height requirement or skills test that disproportionately screens out members of a protected class, like females, asians or hispanics. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). 

Disparate impact discrimination cases are comparatively rare.  Cases involving discriminatory treatment are far more common. Most of MEL's discussion of discrimination involves discriminatory treatment. 

Unlawful Discrimination - the Exception to the Rule

Surprisingly, most forms of employment discrimination are completely lawful. Employers can lawfully prefer a younger applicant with a degree from a prestigious university over an older one from a local state college, if education is what matters. In that case, the employer has a discriminatory motive in favor of a better education, but the motive is rational and legitimate. Even if irrational, employment decisions are not unlawful unless they are motivated by an employee's protected class. An employer could, for example, refuse to hire a 50 year old female Asian born under the sign of Aquarius, because she is an Aquarian. Although irrational, no law prohibits discriminaton based on astrological sign. As long as the employer's decision was not motivated by the employee's age, gender or race, it was lawful. 

Proving Unlawful Motivation

Proving unlawful motivation is not easy. Motive is invisible. We cannot touch or feel what someone thinks. Plus, most discriminators either fail to recognize their discriminatory motive, or are clever enough to conceal it. Consequently, "there will seldom be 'eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental processes." United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716, (1983). But when there is it is known as "direct evidence" of discrimination.

Direct Evidence of Discrimination

Direct evidence of discrimination is "that evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination" motivated the employer's actions. Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. Sales Corp., 176 F.3d 921, 926 (6th Cir. 1999).  Decision-maker statements that qualify as direct evidence include:

  • disparaging remarks about people in the protected class in general ("you can't teach an old salesman how to market with social media")
  • disparaging remarks that relate an individual's protected characteristic, especially as it relates to work ("Tiffany misses too much work because of her son is disabled")
  • remarks reflecting stereotypical views of people in a protected class ("Gretta is so bipolar. I never know what she will do next.")
  • slurs and demeaning jokes based on the protected characterisic ("I would ask you how old you are but I know you forgot how to count that high”)

Circumstantial Evidence

More commonly, a discrimination claimant has only circumstantial evidence that implies unlawful bias. Kline v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 128 F.3d 337, 348 (6th Cir. 1997) (setting forth the manner in which a plaintiff may prove unlawful discrimination under the ADEA). Circumstantial evidence is proof that does not on its face establish discriminatory animus, but lets a fact finder draw a reasonable inference that discrimination occurred. Kline, 128 F.3d at 348. Circumstantial evidence of bias can include:

  • treatment so unusual, egregious, unjust, or severe as to suggest discrimination,
  • an employer’s history of showing bias toward younger employees,
  • statistically significant differences in the numbers of females and males hired or fired,
  • adverse treatment of workers in the protected classification, but not workers outside of it, and vice versa
  • charges or complaints of similar discriminatory treatment by other members of the protected class, 
  • violation of company policy with regard to protected workers, without justification, and
  • false reasons for adverse treatment given by the employer as a cover up of the real reason.

A common thread running through circumstantial evidence is the treatment of "comparators," or comparably situated other employees outside of the protected class. If an employer treats comparators the same as employees within the protected class, the employer has proof that it did not discriminate against the protected class, and vice versa. Mickey v. Zeidler Tool and Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 521-22 (6th Cir. 2008). 

Pretext Evidence of Discrimination

In cases in which employees lack direct, statistical or even comparator evidence of discrimination, an unexplainable or false reason for an adverse employment action can tilt the burden of proof in the victim's favor. This happens as a result of the "burden shifting" process that the U.S. Supreme Court adopted to compensate for the fact that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is hard to come by. The burden shifting process forces the employer to explain its reasons for the adverse action, and allows the employee to attack the employer's stated reason as pretextual. If the employee proves that the employer stated a false reason as a cover up of the real reason, the jury can infer that the real reason is unlawful discrimination.

Proving that the employer's stated reasons are false permits an inference of unlawful discrimination because employers know better than anyone else the real reason for their actions. If employers lie and give a false reason, the jury can conclude that the reason the employer lied was to cover up an unlawful reason.

Damages in Discrimination Cases

An employee who proves unlawful discriminat is entitled to be placed in the position he or she would have been absent the discrimination. This can include lost wages, past and future, lost benefits, compensation for emotional pain and suffering and, in some cases, an award of attorneys' fees.

Articles (26)

Proving Unlawful Employment Discrimination
Employment discrimination comes in two forms, "disparate" (i.e., differing) treatment and disparate impact. Disparate impact describes differing treatment resulting from an otherwise neutral employmen... applies to All States

Overview of Unlawful Employment Discrimination
Unlawful employment discrimination means adverse treatment of employees motivated by the employees' age, sex, race, creed, religion, national origin, disability, veterans status or other protected cla... applies to All States

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amends the enforcement provisions of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to permit suits by Plaintiffs who file a charge of discrimination challengi... applies to All States

Family and Care Giver Discrimination, Harassment and Discharge
Family responsibility discrimination is an emerging area of discrimination law. Although no specific law designates a family care giver as a protected class, a number of laws protect people with famil... applies to Florida

List of Employment Law FAQs
Non-competition Severance pay Retaliation Sexual harassment Family leave Discrimination Wrongfully accused Overtime Tax Issues in Settlements Healthy Families Act Smoke free workplace Ohio non-compete... applies to All States

EEOC Time Limit for Filing a Charge of Discrimination
Before a sexual harassment or other discrimination victim can file suit in federal court, they must first file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Feder... applies to All States

Florida wrongful discharge law
Florida law does not recognize a “wrongful termination” or "wrongful discharge" claim, at least by that name. Florida is an at-will state, which means that an employer may fire, demote, hire, prom... applies to Florida

Evidence in Discrimination Cases
Discrimination cases turn on the employer's motive for taking an employment action, like failing to hire or firing an employee. The employee must prove that the employer's bias against people in the e... applies to All States

Overview of American At-will Employment
American employment law is built on the foundation of at-will employment. Before any meaningful body of employment law existed, employment in America was at-will. Based in state contract law, at-will ... applies to All States

Same Actor Inference
The "same actor inference" is a defense theory based on the logic that a discriminatory employer will not hire a person in a protected class. Therefore, the logic goes, where the same person hires the... applies to Ohio

Discovery Plans for Employment Litigation
A court’s Rules of Civil Procedure (its “Civil Rules”) empower the parties to gather evidence, including that in the control of opposing parties and reluctant witnesses. The Civil Rules do this ... applies to All States

The Role of Seniority in Employment Law
The concept of seniority has a high level of importance in employment law. For example, if there is a conflict between a bona fide seniority system and an agreement to settle a discrimination claim, i... applies to All States

Ohio Public Policy exception to At-will Employment
In Greeley v. Miami Valley Maint. Contractors , 49 Ohio St. 3d 228 (Ohio 1990), the Ohio Supreme Court held that "[p]ublic policy warrants an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine when an emplo... applies to Ohio

Ohio Prohibition against Military and Uniformed Services Employment Discrimination
Ohio USERRA In 2008 Ohio enacted its own veteran's protection laws, which created the Department of Veterans' services and an Ohio private employment claim, found at ORC 5903.02: Any person whose abse... applies to Ohio

Military Employment Leave: Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Federal USERRA The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) was signed into law on October 13, 1994. USERRA clarifies and strengthens the Veterans' Reemployment Right... applies to All States

How to Value Claims for Severance Negotiations
This article describes a process for employment lawyers to use to place a value on a severance pay offer. It involves identifying claims, identifying the damages associated with those claims, discount... applies to All States

Qualified Privilege Protects Florida Employers from Employee Reference Defamation Suits
An employer is presumed immune from a defamation claim for disclosing untrue information about an employee’s job performance if the untrue information is: 1. Published to a prospective employer; 2. ... applies to Florida

Ohio Duty of Fair Representation in the public sector
A union owes all of its members a duty of fair representation. The union cannot discriminate against an individual or group of members regarding matters for which the union represents them. This inclu... applies to Ohio

Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. 42 USC 12101 et seq. A qualified individual with a disability is an individual with ... applies to All States

USERRA Overview
Federal USERRA The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) was signed into law on October 13, 1994. USERRA clarifies and strengthens the Veterans' Reemployment Right... applies to All States

Retaliatory Counterclaims in Sexual Harassment Suits
If a party accused of sexual harassment in a suit (the Defendant) files a counterclaim against the harassment victim (the Plaintiff) after the Plaintiff filed suit, because she filed suit, courts will... applies to Ohio

Executive Orders affecting Unions issued by the Obama Administration.
President Barack Obama signed a series of executive orders in his first month in office favorable to organized labor. They include: Notification of employee rights under federal labor laws ; Economy i... applies to All States

The Role of Contracts in Employment Law
Contracts play a central role in employment law. The most basic employment arrangement, at-will employment, is purely contractual in nature. Floyd v. DuBois Soap Co. (1942), 139 Ohio St. 520, 530-531,... applies to All States

Summary of ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)
On September 25, 2008, President Bush signed the ADA Amendment Act (ADAAA) into law. It's effective date is January 1, 2009. The U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives both unanimously pass... applies to All States

Arbitration of Employment Disputes
The federal arbitration act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq . and Ohio’s arbitration act ORC § 2711.01 et seq. , both direct a court to stay trial of a matter that is the subject of a written arbitrat... applies to Ohio

Family and Medical Leave Act 2008 Rule Changes.
The Department of Labor issued final changes to its Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rules, which took effect on January 16, 2009. These changes include the new leave related to military service me... applies to All States

Have an Employment Law question?