Nair Law LLC
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Rishi Nair >
      • Representative Experience
      • Publications & Awards
      • Professional & Civic Activities
      • Additional Background
  • Nair Law LLC Blog
  • Press Coverage
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Sony and Temp. Worker Agency Wrongfully Terminate Disabled Worker

12/9/2012

0 Comments

 
The EEOC, despite major budget cuts and a stated goal of suing on behalf of classes or employers engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, decided to sue on behalf of a woman fired after only 2 days on the job allegedly because she had a prosthetic leg.

The EEOC is the federal administrative agency that authorizes individuals to sue for employment discrimination matters including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. § 621-629), and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).
The EEOC acted in the sole interest of this woman, as they explain it, because of the egregious nature of terminating a woman not because she could not perform adequately as compared to a more able worker, but because she was disabled and therefore undesirable for some reason.  Obviously we only have one side's version of the events.  

It is somewhat surprising that Sony did not settle the case before it went public that they are being accused of discriminating against a disabled woman and the EEOC, despite very limited resources, felt this was a case they wished to take on rather than pass onto private employment litigators, like Nair Law LLC, which usually fight for these individuals to receive compensation for employer's violation of federal and state laws aimed at protecting workers.

Regardless, based on the Chicago Tribune's reporting, it appears that the worker has made out a prima facie case of discrimination and under the McConnell-Douglas burden shifting framework, it is Sony and its temporary staffing agency's burden to prove that their motivations in "reassigning" but never actually giving the woman any work were not wholly motivated by improper bases for termination such as race, gender, national origin, or failure to accommodate a disability.   Since the Plaintiff claims she was taken off inspection work, despite her ability to perform that work adequately, and was never given any other work despite her insistent calling, Sony will have a tougher time meeting its burden that they did attempt, in good faith, to search for a replacement position for the Plaintiff.  Regardless of the legal outcome, Sony faces the stigma of being known as a hostile employer to the most vulnerable and marginalized workers: disabled workers.  

It, to me, appears to a strategic blunder unless they really do have a strong affirmative defense to these allegations.  If they do, I doubt the EEOC would have made this their statement case.  Someone is misplaying their cards and I think if the EEOC gets this case in front of a jury, Sony will lose badly.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Rishi Nair owns Nair Law LLC and practices as Of Counsel at Keener and Associates, P.C.

    Archives

    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012

    Categories

    All
    Accident
    ADA
    Affirmative Defense
    Alienation Of Affection
    Appeal
    Association
    Award
    Bankruptcy
    Breach Of Contract
    Breach Of Warranty
    Cancellation
    Cease And Desist
    Certify
    Choice Of Forum
    Choice Of Law
    Civil Rights
    Civil Rights Act Of 1964
    Class
    Class Action
    Commerce Clause
    Common Carrier
    Common Elements
    Compliance
    Condo
    Condominium
    Constitution
    Constitutional Rights
    Contracts
    Conversion
    Countersue
    Criminal Defense
    Debt
    Debt Collector
    Deep Dish Pizza
    Defamation
    Defense
    Dilution
    Disability
    Discrimination
    Dog Bite
    Driver
    Duty Of Care
    Elements
    Employment
    Employment Litigation
    Expert
    Express Warranty
    Failure To Maintain
    Fall Protection
    FDCPA
    Federal
    Federal Law
    First Amendment
    FOIA
    Forcible Entry And Detainer Act
    Forum Non Conveniens
    Fourteenth Amendment
    Hotel
    Illinois
    Illinois Law
    Implied Warranty
    Infringement
    Injunction
    Insurance
    Intellectual Property
    Intentional Tort
    IP Litigation
    IP Litigation
    Jury
    Jury Verdict
    Lawsuit
    Litigation
    Medical Malpractice
    Negligence
    Negotiate
    Osha
    Personal Injury
    Product Liability
    Property
    Protected Conduct
    Real Estate Landlord Tenant Ordinance
    Real Property
    Reckless
    Retaliation
    RLTO
    Safety
    Second Appellate District
    Section 1983
    Seniority
    Settlement
    Seventh Circuit
    Special
    Speeding
    Sports
    Subrogation
    Tax
    Taxation
    Ticket
    Title VII
    Tort
    Tortious Interference
    Trademark
    Trademark Enforcement
    Trademark Litigation
    Trespass
    Trespass To Chattels
    TTAB
    Uniform Commercial Code
    Unpaid
    Vehicle
    Workplace Accident

    RSS Feed

    Privacy Policy
    Terms of Use
    Disclaimer


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Phil Roeder