Jack in the Box turns down deaf applicant, draws lawsuit

By L.M. SIXEL Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

May 17, 2004, 9:51PM

Federal employment regulators are suing Jack in the Box for allegedly refusing to hire a deaf applicant at its restaurant in Baytown.

Alfonso Cruz applied for a cook's position in February of last year but was turned down because the store manager considered his deafness to be a liability, according to the lawsuit filed in a Houston federal court Monday.

The manager explained to Cruz and his mother, Estefana Cruz, who used sign language to translate, that she "did not want to set him up to fail," said Aimee McFerren, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawyer working on the case.

The store manager of the North Main store in Baytown told Cruz she could not hire him for the $5.15 an hour position because of the complexity of its food operation, McFerren said.

Jack in the Box operates with an audible timer system that sounds different tones when the food is cooked or it has been sitting too long, McFerren said. But it also has display screens that count down the time remaining.

Allegations of discrimination are totally unfounded, and Jack in the Box has a long-standing policy of not tolerating discrimination of any kind, said Brian Luscomb, spokesman for the San Diego-based restaurant chain, which has 1,970 U.S. locations.

Luscomb said he hadn't seen the lawsuit, which alleges that Jack in the Box violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Cruz later found a job as a fry cook at a competing fast-food restaurant in Baytown and is doing well, McFerren said. He reads video screens that are in the restaurant, so he knows what to prepare.

Cruz, a high school senior preparing for graduation, plans to go to a junior college in the fall to study auto mechanics.

"They assumed what he could or could not do without considering his individual abilities," McFerren said.

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/2575700.html

RICC V. DeSTEFANO

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZS.html

Age Discrimination at work

Summarized Sixth Circuit Court Cases

Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
(6^th Cir. (Tenn.) May 12, 1998)

The Plaintiff, Gantt, was an at-will employee of Wilson Sporting Goods when she suffered an injury at work which required surgery. She told her supervisor that she would be off work for six months to a year. During her absence, she received disability benefits through worker’s compensation. The Defendant’s policy was that after one year a disabled employee not returning to work would be fired. After Gantt failed to obtain a doctor’s release to return to work within one year, the Defendant fired her., She was 58 at the time of her termination. Two weeks after her termination, Gantt obtained her release, with certain physical restrictions. The Plaintiff did not appeal her termination or seek reemployment. Rather, she filed suit in district court alleging, among other things, that the Defendant’s leave of absence policy violated the ADEA because it had a disparate impact on older employees. The Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

The Sixth Circuit noted that the Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the Defendant’s leave of absence policy violated the ADEA because older employees are more likely to require a leave of absence greater than one year. The Court of Appeals stated that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision inHazen Paper Co. v. Biggens, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), there is now considerable doubt as to whether a claim of age discrimination may exist under a disparate-impact theory. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals stated that, even if a disparate-impact claim was allowed, the Plaintiff would have to support her claim by offering statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question had caused the termination of employees due to their membership in a protected group. The court held that, given her failure to present any evidence to support her adverse impact theory, judgment was properly granted in favor of the Defendant on this claim.

The Plaintiff also asserted a theory of age discrimination based on disparate treatment. Gantt stated that summary judgment was improper because she was 58 at the time of her termination, and the Company had no other reason to dismiss her other than the leave of absence she took. The Court rejected this claim, holding that a claim of disparate treatment under the ADEA requires proof of a discriminatory motive. The court held the Plaintiff had demonstrated no direct evidence that would tend to show that the drafting or execution of the leave policy was actually motivated by an intent to discriminate against older employees. Neither did the Plaintiff offer the evidence needed to make out a prima facie circumstantial case of discrimination in that she did not show that a substantially younger person replaced her or was treated more favorably than her.

Finally, Gantt argued that the reason that she was fired was a pretext for age discrimination. Because she had not established a prima facie case of age discrimination, the Court of Appeals found that, under the McDonnell Douglas test, there was no need to address the question of pretext. Having rejected all three of the Plaintiff’s theories of age discrimination, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

What is your verdict?

Source: http://www.agerights.com/cases/sixthcircuitcourt/gantt.html

Race discrimination at work

[..] 33382077 (1.0) (10.46 KB) Hassan, an 18 year old male of Lebanese descent, starts work at a local supermarket. After working there for a few weeks stacking shelves he overhears the store manager telling his supervisor that "all Lebanese guys are troublemakers. I'm worried that he'll cause problems for the Aussie girls if he gets near them". After that, his supervisor tells Hassan to stay out the back of the store, where it's hot and dusty, and not talk to anyone. Hassan's supervisor and the store manager constantly watch him, and tell him off every time they catch him talking to a female member of staff. Hassan notices that none of the other male staff are treated like this when they talk to female staff members. When he asks his supervisor why he had to stay out the back while others get to stack shelves, his supervisor says that it's because he talks too much. Hassan argues with this, and points out that he didn't talk much at all when he was stacking shelves. After that, his shifts are cut.