Issue: WHETHER THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPARTMENT’S PROMOTION PROCESS WAS PRETEXTUAL, BECAUSE IT WAS A SHAM.
| Area of Law: | Employee Law |
| Keywords: | Employment discrimination case; Promotion process sham; Substantial evidence |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 195 F.3d 333; 127 Wn. 2d 302; 168 F.3d 961; 898 P.2d 284; 127 Wn. 2d 3; 438 U.S. 567 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 03/01/2001 |
See TA s "Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. " c 1 l "Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000)"Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2105 (2000). “[W]hen all legitimate reasons for rejecting an applicant have been eliminated as possible reasons for the employer’s actions, it is more likely than not the employer, who we generally assume acts with some reason, based [its] decision on an impermissible consideration.” TA s "Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577 (1" c 1 l "Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978)"Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577 (1978).
It is for the trier of fact to determine whether a person’s age or his status as a member of a racial minority was a “substantial factor” in the employer’s adverse actions. See TA s "Mackay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 127 Wn. 2d 3" c 1 l "Mackay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 127 Wn. 2d 302, 898 P.2d 284 (1995)"Mackay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 127 Wn. 2d 302, 309, 898 P.2d 284 (1995); TA s "Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. " c 1Reeves, 120 S. Ct. 2106.
In TA s "Diettrich v. Northwest Airlines, 168 F.3d 961 (7th C" c 1 l "Diettrich v. Northwest Airlines,