Managerial Miscues and Multiple Claims of Discrimination a/k/a This Is Not Your Personal Candy Store

By Michael Cork

book michael cork

more michael cork writings

My 30+ years of employment practice has always involved representing individual employees, as well as employers. (Not at the same time, of course.) I find the exposure to both plaintiffs and defendants gives me a better perspective for the opposing party's position.  My experience overall has made me generally suspicious of discrimination claims alleging multiple categories of discrimination. For example, a complaint by one individual of claims based on age, race, sex, and marital status, makes me suspect that the multiple claims are brought for shock value, are unsupported by the facts, and will likely wilt under close examination. But not always. A close examination of the facts is crucial–especially at the intake phase.

​Consider, for example, a brief summary of a telephone intake performed upon receiving a "cold-call" from a Caucasian, single-father, in his early 40's, who had just interviewed for a med-tech position and was rejected. A few well-placed questions revealed that the potential employer was a smaller workplace, but one with enough employees to subject it to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The employer provided services to a nearby hospital and the workforce consisted, primarily, of medical technicians, a few administrative types, and one or two managers.

The cold-caller revealed that the manager who conducted interviews was in his late twenties to early thirties, single, a member of a racial minority, and apparently heterosexual. He added that the med-tech employees were uniformly female, single, in their early to mid-twenties, and members of the same racial minority as the hiring manager.  The applicant suspected that the hiring manager was basing hiring decisions on the potential for romance.  And the applicant's suspicions were bolstered after a chance encounter with an existing med-tech in the hallway, after the interview. Yes, indeed, the applicant was not hired, because, arguably, he was the wrong sex, the wrong race, too old, and had those children to deal with.
​
If Chris Matthews was a plaintiff's employment lawyer, these facts would give him a "thrill up his leg." One interview, followed by a rejection and some valuable information from an existing employee provided viable claims based on sex, race, age, and marital/family status.
But I cannot help but slip on my management hat and wonder who this guy reported to, and where human resources was. This manager—no, this employer—needed an experienced HR person to establish some hiring parameters, to pre-screen applicants, and to remove Rudolph Valentino from the hiring process. Because in addition to the aforementioned claims by the rejected applicant, it was only a matter of time before the sexual harassment claims started to roll-in from the existing med-techs. And don't forget the claims by former med-techs he terminated because they rejected his advances. Finally, this employer was a prime candidate for a "no romance" policy prohibiting relationships between superiors and subordinates.