A federal appeal court has returned its panel's decision and ruled against a dismissed police who ended after she apologized from Taser training for a heart condition. [8-659002] The 8-3 directed by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeal in Atlanta in Jacqueline Lewis v City of Union City, Georgia, et al. deals with the standard to be used in discrimination cases to determine whether others who are not discriminated in the same way.
The ruling concludes that a plaintiff claiming an intentional discrimination claim must show others "is similarly in all essential respects."
The case is about Jacqueline Lewis, an African-American woman who joined Union City, Georgia, police force year 2000 and was taken to detective in 2008 according to court documents in Jacqueline Lewis against City of Union City, Georgia, et al.
Ms. Lewis was scheduled for Taser training, but in June 201
Two days later, Ms Lewis was placed on administrative leave without pay and ended the following month. Ms Lewis brought an action in the US District Court in Atlanta for charges including disability discrimination according to Americans with disabilities law and race and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. District Court granted Union City summary judgment dismissing the charges
A divided three judges 11 : The circuit board restored the charges in his opinion, with the majority saying that the case would be settled by a jury.
To achieve a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must prove among other things that she was treated differently from another "equally located" individual, or "comparator," said Thursday's banc judgment.
"The obvious question: how is it in the same way" must a plaintiff and her comparators be? "Asked those who add:" So far, our attempts to answer that question have only confused that. "
The judgment concluding that providing a deliberate discrimination cl aims to use circumstances that prove that a plaintiff must show" she was treated differently than other people with whom she was likewise in all essential aspects ".
This was not the case here, the court said. It is up to the other two officers with whom Lewis has compared" was subject to different personnel policies and was left for various underlying conditions. "
They" were not like Lewis "in all essential aspects" and were therefore not valid comparators for Lewis prima facie cases, "says the majority alternative, in the case of Ms Lewis.
In the minority statement in the case, the majority perception "falls a pattern on the employer's side of the balance" between a worker's right to work freely from disks imination and an employer to act against an employee for all non-discriminatory reasons.
"As a result, the plaintiffs who follow circumstances in this circuit will have a difficult time achieving the current balance and surviving summary judgment," it said.
Lawyers in the case could not be reached immediately for comment.