Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Court rules that the employer rebutted the employee?s prima facie case it unlawful discriminated against him because of his race

Court rules that the employer rebutted the employee?s prima facie case it unlawful discriminated against him because of his race
Dr. Edwin Hasson v Glendale School District, USCA, 3rd Circuit, #07-3249

Dr. Edwin Hasson was dismissed from his position as Superintendent of the Glendale [Pennsylvania] School District.

The School District said that Hasson was terminated after its investigation for incompetence; intemperance; neglect of duty; willful violation of and immorality in the performance of his duties; misuse of Glendale?s funds; violation of compulsory attendance rules; inappropriate discipline of staff; insubordination; improper and excessive use of Glendale?s equipment for personal use; and misrepresentation to the Board of School Directors that resulted in financial repercussions to Glendale.

Hasson sued, alleging that Glendale dismissed because of his race discrimination in violation of Title VII; age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a); and disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). On September 13, 2006, a Magistrate Judge dismissed the age and disability discrimination claims, leaving only the race discrimination claim for further adjudication.

Hasson, Arab-American Muslim of Lebanese descent, contended that Glendale terminated him from his job as superintendent as a result of anti-Arab sentiment occurring in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In considering his appeal, the Circuit Court said that Hasson presented no evidence other than vague conclusory allegations to show that he faced discrimination such as that he was the target of ethnic slurs.

The decision recited the standards followed by the courts in considering a Title VII employment discrimination action as follows:

1. The plaintiff bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case and must show he or she is a member of a protected class, was qualified for his job, suffered an adverse employment action, and that others not in the protected class were treated more favorably [McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792].

2. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, he or she creates a rebuttable presumption of discrimination, shifting the burden to the defendant to present a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment action. Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759].

3. If the defendant presents a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff who must produce evidence rebutting his or her employer?s proffered legitimate reason for its adverse employment action. To meet this burden, the plaintiff must show his or her employer?s proffered reason was false and that discrimination was the real and determinative reason for his or her employer?s actions.

Accordingly, said the court, in order to prevail at trial Hasson would need to prove that ?but for? his ethnicity he would have been retained as Glendale?s superintendent and the evidence he presents must be sufficient to allow a fact finder to reasonably infer that Glendale?s proffered reason was either a post hoc fabrication or did not actually motivate its action.

Although the court said that Hasson made a prima facie case of discrimination, it found that Glendale met its burden to show a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason behind its
decision to terminate him. Thus, in order for Hasson to survive summary judgment, he must present sufficient evidence to cast substantial doubt upon Glendale?s stated reasons for terminating him, or he must present sufficient evidence ?from which a fact finder could reasonably conclude that an illegitimate factor more likely than not was a motivating or determinative cause of the adverse employment decision.?

The Circuit Court concluded that Hasson failed to present sufficient evidence to accomplish either and dismissed his appeal.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/073249np.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on January 06, 2009 (boomark / email).