Woman Claiming She Was Denied IT Job for Not Being Korean Gets Second Chance in Court
A federal appeals court has revived part of a discrimination lawsuit filed by a black woman who claimed she was denied a transfer to a tech job because…
June 01, 2018 at 02:56 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
A federal appeals court has revived part of a discrimination lawsuit filed by a black woman who claimed she was denied a transfer to a tech job because her employer “wanted a Korean in that position,” and was terminated for complaining about it.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a federal judge's grant of summary judgment in part and allowed plaintiff Jerberee Jefferson to proceed with her case against Sewon America, where she worked as a temporary employee, was promoted to full-time in the finance division, and later fired.
The company claimed Jefferson was fired after a negative performance evaluation, but Jefferson argued she was terminated because she complained about being denied a position in the information technology department because of her race.
“The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sewon. We reverse in part because Jefferson presented direct evidence that Sewon failed to transfer her on the basis of her race and nationality and circumstantial evidence that Sewon fired her in retaliation for her complaint, and we affirm in part because Jefferson failed to present substantial evidence that Sewon fired her on the basis of race or national origin,” Eleventh Circuit Judge William Pryor Jr. wrote in the court's opinion.
According to the opinion, Jefferson approached her supervisor, Gene Chung, about transferring to the IT department at Sewon while she was in the probationary period of her new full-time finance clerk position and was taking technology classes at a local college.
Chung gave her a basic computer proficiency test, on which she performed poorly, according to Pryor. Later Chung informed Jefferson that she was ineligible for the transfer because she was inexperienced and because a higher-ranked manager “wanted a Korean in that position,” according to Pryor's opinion.
At the same time, Jefferson was having issues with her managers, who claimed she was unproductive, returned from lunch late multiple times and did not silence her phone during work. According to Pryor, she received a negative performance review, and Sewon claimed Jefferson was fired as a result.
Jefferson received no written warning or final warning before her dismissal, despite the fact that there was a policy in place requiring just that, Pryor said. Jefferson filed suit claiming discrimination both in her denial of a transfer to the IT department and her firing.
The appeals court reversed the district judge's application of what it said was the wrong legal standard in dismissing the denial of transfer claim, one that deals with circumstantial evidence when Jefferson presented direct evidence of discrimination.
However, Pryor said, “To be sure, at least some of the blame for this error lies with Jefferson because she repeatedly described her evidence as circumstantial, not as direct evidence of discrimination.”
Jon M. Gumbel of Burr & Forman in Atlanta represents Sewon and did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did Jefferson's lawyer, Amanda A. Farahany of Barrett & Farahany in Atlanta.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Employee's Alleged Action Lands Marriott in Court for Defamation, Negligence
11th Circuit Rejects Former CSX Employee's Safety-Related Whistleblowing Claims
Judge Says University of Miami Should Face Discrimination Case by Ex-Department Chair
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250