A demoted minority employee didn’t show she was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees. Her employer offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for her demotion. She won her appeal. Whaaaaaat? Clearly there’s more here than meets the eye. So let’s find out…
Dawn Liu, a woman of Chinese descent, and longtime USPS employee was postmaster of the Shelton, WA post office. She was allegedly targeted with false complaints and grievances because of her race, sex and national origin. Male managers were not so targeted. More than once, workers called her “Asian bitch” and “witch”, and spread rumors that she “can’t read or speak English and doesn’t understand it”.
An investigator of one of the grievances asked her if she “had some personal or intimate relationship with” her supervisor. (The investigator knowing that he was married to an Asian woman.)
The supervisor told HR he believed the union rep and other employees targeted her due to her race and gender. Instead of investigating the union rep HR worked with the union rep to discipline Lui. HR even invited the rep to a disciplinary meeting regarding Lui that didn’t involve union matters.
The supervisor complained to the HR rep’s supervisor. The HR rep’s supervisor called a meeting where he and the HR rep told him they “wanted Lui removed from the USPS” and pressured him (threatening to move him to another position) to agree or provide an alternative. Ultimately the meeting resulted in Ms. Lui being demoted and replaced by a less experienced white man.
Ms. Lui appealed and the USPS affirmed her demotion. She filed an EEO complaint. The USPS again affirmed the demotion. She sued, alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation. The District Court granted summary judgment to the USPS, holding that: a) the grievances were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for demoting her and b) since she didn’t show she was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees she didn’t allege enough to show potential discrimination.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed as to the discrimination/hostile work environment claims. It cited US Supreme Court precedent that allows an employee to show less favorable treatment OR that they were replaced by someone outside the protected class– which she did.
The court also noted that the grievances were themselves allegedly racially motivated, and so raised a factual issue as to the reason for her demotion.
This case shows how a situation may be very different from what it initially seems. (Didn’t you initially think the appeals court got this one wrong?)
If you ignore or try to shut down an employee raising discrimination or similar concerns, guess what: they don’t go away. What would have been the harm of listening to a long-term employee with no previous complaints, and no previous performance or conduct issues?
Doubling down on illegal employment practices, not to mention a toxic work culture may succeed in the short term, but at what cost?
Your thoughts?