Florida Racial Discrimination: Temp Male Nurse
Racial Discrimination of Temp Male Nurse.
For Florida race discrimination questions contact our employment attorneys today.
In April of 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided a case that involved racial discrimination under 42 USC 1981 claims based on race. This case was Williamson v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 2010 WL 1444574 (C.A.11(Fla.)). In Williamson, the Plaintiff worked as a temporary licensed practical nurse for the named defendants. Plaintiff was a Jamaican-born black male. Id. Plaintiff was fired after he refused to perform janitorial duties. Id. Plaintiff claims he was subject to racial epithets before he was fired and that other supervisors commented on his race and national origin more than once. Id. Defendants claim that Plaintiff was fired for failure to procure prescribed medicine for a patient during his shirt. Id. Plaintiff claims this was true but that other non-minority nurses were not terminated when their performance was deficient. Id.
Plaintiff first contends in his race discrimination case that one of the defendants is liable under a “cat’s paw” theory. Id. A cat’s paw theory may apply when a biased actor recommends that an adverse employment action be taken against an employee, but the biased actor is not the ultimate decision-maker. (cites omitted). Id. As to the defendant that Plaintiff alleged this against, the Court held that there was no such evidence and thus dismissed the race case against this defendant. Id.
Title VII protects an employee from race discrimination. “When a Plaintiff uses circumstantial evidence in an attempt to prove discrimination or retaliation under Title VII, we may apply the burden shifting approach articulated in McDonnell Douglas. (cites omitted). Under this framework, “a plaintiff has the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that 1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for the position; 3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) he was.. treated less favorably than a similarly-situated individual outside his protected class.” (cites omitted). Id.
Further, a plaintiff may establish his race discrimination case through direct evidence. Id. Direct evidence is evidence “which reflects a discriminatory or retaliatory attitude correlating to the discrimination or retaliation complained of by the employee.” Id.
As to the evidence presented in this race discrimination case, the Court held that the racial epithet did not constitute direct evidence. Further, the refusal to perform the assigned job duties was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s firing. Also, the few jokes made did not rise to the level of direct evidence needed. Thus, the Court then looked to see if there was enough if looked at with circumstantial evidence. And to this the Court said no. In that the Defendant gave a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the firing and in that Plaintiff could not rebut it, the Court held that Plaintiff failed to show by circumstantial evidence that the firing was pretextual and thus Plaintiff’s discrimination case was dismissed in its entirety.
If you have been involved in a racial discrimination case that you would like to find out the answers to, please call and speak to racial discrimination lawyers Andrew S. Alitowski or William Ryan Moore at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637). We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
For Florida overtime compensation claims, please visit our website.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!
