Sixth Circuit: Prima Facie Case Does Not Require Female Plaintiff To Prove that She Was More Qualified Than Male Replacement

On December 19, 2007, the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of an employer where the female plaintiff had been laid off one day after a male employee was hired onto her work crew and she was never rehired even though the employer’s workforce increased overall by twelve laborers in the plaintiff’s division. Vincent v. Brewer Co., No.06-4138 (6th Cir. 12/19/2007). The district court had dismissed the case on grounds that her male replacement was more qualified, and thus implied that she was not sufficiently qualified for her position as required to meet her prima facie case. However, the Sixth Circuit noted that a plaintiff need only prove that she was replaced by someone outside the protected class and need not show that the replacement was less qualified, or even as qualified, as she. She would only need to show that she was similarly qualified to a similarly-situated male if she was claiming different treatment instead of being replaced by a male.

The employer had also argued it had not discriminated against the plaintiff because it had laid off other employees at the same time as her and that she had a history of misconduct. However, the Court noted that there was sufficient potential evidence of pretext in that, among other things, (1) the other employee were laid off were temps, unlike the plaintiff; (2) there was evidence of numerous sexist comments by the decisionmaker and other managers; (3) she had received several favorable performance evaluations and been promoted in the past; (4) her co-workers claimed that she was very productive; and (5) there was little temporal proximity between her layoff and the prior instances of misconduct. Therefore, there was enough of a factual dispute in the evidence for a jury to decide whether the plaintiff had been laid off on account of her sex as she claimed.

Insomniacs may read the full decision at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/064138p.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.