Cengage Advantage Books: Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business 3rd Edition by Marianne Jennings

تمرين 11

Chescheir v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. 713 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1983)
Why Can He Go to Law School But I Can't? The Case of the Law Student Claims Adjuster
Facts
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (defendant) has a rule prohibiting its adjusters and first-year supervisors from attending law school. This "law school rule" was proposed and implemented on a national basis by Edmund Carr, a vice president and general claims manager, in November 1972.
Joan Chescheir (plaintiff) was hired by Liberty Mutual's Dallas office in March 1973 as a claims adjuster.
In August 1976, Wyatt Trainer, the claims manager at the Houston office, received an anonymous letter informing him that Ms. Chescheir was attending law school. After consulting with his assistants and superior, Mr. Trainer fired her after she admitted she was attending law school.
Charity O'Connell also worked in the Houston office as a claims adjuster during the same period as Ms. Chescheir. During a coffee break with a new employee, Timothy Schwirtz (also an adjuster), Ms. O'Connell relayed the story of Ms. Chescheir's firing. Mr. Schwirtz then said, "Oh, that's strange, because when I was hired, when Wells [Southwest Division claims manager] interviewed me, he told me that I could go to law school and in fact if I came down to the Houston office, there were law schools in Houston." Ms. O'Connell then went to her supervisor and told him she also was attending law school. She refused to quit law school and was fired.
William McCarthy, Liberty's house counsel in its Houston office, attended law school while working as an adjuster and was retained as house counsel upon his graduation. Mr. McCarthy's supervisors were aware of his contemporaneous law school career. Alvin Dwayne White was employed as an adjuster in Liberty's Fort Worth office and asked for a transfer to Houston so he could attend law school. He was given the transfer and attended law school in Houston. James Ballard worked as an adjuster in Houston, attended law school, and was promoted to supervisor while in law school.
Supervisors and employees were aware of his law school attendance, but the law school rule was not enforced against him.
Ms. Chescheir and Ms. O'Connell both filed complaints with the EEOC and filed suit in federal district court. The court found that Liberty Mutual had violated Title VII. Both women were given back pay. Liberty Mutual appealed.
Judicial Opinion
GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge
Title VII applies … not only to the more blatant forms of discrimination, but also to subtler forms, such as discriminatory enforcement of work rules.
The district court made multitudinous findings of subsidiary facts and concluded in a finding of ultimate fact: "The defendant applied its law school rule differently to male and female employees."
It is clear that the plaintiffs are members of a protected group and that there was a company policy or practice concerning the activity for which the plaintiffs were discharged; thus the first two elements of the test are met. It is also clear that minority employees were disciplined without the application of a lenient policy, and in conformity with a strict policy. All women known to violate the law school rule were immediately discharged. Furthermore, even potential violations of the rule by women were investigated promptly. An anonymous letter was sufficient to trigger an investigation of Chescheir, and the fact that Chescheir was attending law school moved the company to interrogate another woman.
The only remaining element of the prima facie case is a finding that male employees either were given the benefit of a lenient company practice or were not held to compliance with a strict company policy. This is the element upon which Liberty Mutual focuses its attack. Recasting Liberty Mutual's argument slightly, it claims that other males were strictly disciplined in accord with the law school rule, and that Liberty Mutual never knew that McCarthy, White, and Ballard were attending law school. Thus, claims Liberty Mutual, the third element was not met.
We are not persuaded. First, our review of the record does not disclose any males in the Southwest Division who were discharged because of the law school rule. Second, even were we to accept Liberty Mutual's contention that it did not actually know McCarthy, White, and Ballard were attending law school, we would still affirm the judgment. The operative question is merely whether Liberty Mutual applied a more liberal standard to male employees. The district court found that there were widespread rumors that McCarthy and Ballard were attending law school.
That Liberty Mutual applied its law school rule discriminatorily finds firm support in the record; all four elements of the prima facie case are present.
Once Chescheir and O'Connell established a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifted to Liberty Mutual to present a justification. The district court found that Liberty Mutual offered no justification.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Case Questions
1. Had any male employees ever been fired under the rule?
2. Were there examples of disparate use of the rule?
3. Give an example of some facts that would have supported a defense theory that there were non-discriminatory reasons for the terminations.