Welcome! To read each post in full, click on the post title.

This is not legal advice, which can only be given by an attorney admitted to practice law in your jurisdiction after hearing all of the facts and circumstances in a particular case.

Friday, July 4, 2014

8th Circuit Strikes Again - "I hate to discriminate against you because you're a man" isn't direct evidence of discrimination

"I hate to discriminate against you because you're a man, but the doctors want more female nurses in the OR.” A-OK in the 8th Circuit. Workplace Prof Blog tells another tale of the pesky 8th Circuit federal Court of Appeals, which covers the mid-West. The trial court found no direct evidence of discrimination, despite the fact that the decisionmaker directly commented that a protected trait was related to the job action. The Eighth Circuit refused to consider whether or not the statement constituted direct evidence. What do you need in the 8th Circuit, a neon sign? The Circuit Court also said there was no adverse action, because the nurse did not formally apply for the position. Apparently, even if they say you're not getting the job, you have to formally apply for it to get legal relief.



No comments: