In Bart v. Golub Corporation, No. 23-238, 2024 WL 1281069 (2d Cir. March 26, 2024), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals provided additional clarity to analyzing claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the Court addressed whether an employee needs to show an employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination was false in order to continue a discrimination claim, answering in the negative.
The case arose from a female manager at a supermarket called Price Chopper, owned by defendant Golub Corporation, who was terminated two days after being disciplined for falsifying food logs maintained for safety purposes. Although the plaintiff admitted she violated the food log policy, she argued that she was fired because of her gender. The plaintiff supported this by alleging that the individual who terminated her repeatedly made sexist remarks to her, including insinuations that a man would be able to perform her role better than a woman would. The district court dismissed her case at the summary judgment stage, finding that her admission that she violated store policy doomed her claims.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Court found that the dismissal was based on an improper application of “pretext” analysis to plaintiff’s claims. While a plaintiff must show that a defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination is pretextual by providing evidence of discrimination, that does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff needs to show the reason was entirely false. The Court explained:
“It becomes clear through analysis of our case law that referring to this third step as the ‘pretext’ stage in mixed-motives cases is only a partial description of the proper inquiry, as a Title VII plaintiff need not prove that the employer’s stated reason was false. A plaintiff instead need only show that the employer’s stated reason—even if true or factually accurate—was not the ‘real reason,’ in the sense that it was not the entire reason due to a coexisting impermissible consideration. While we use ‘pretext’ as shorthand, we have explained that a more complete characterization of a plaintiff’s third-stage burden in mixed-motives cases is to produce ‘admissible evidence … show[ing] circumstances that would be sufficient to permit a rational finder of fact to infer that the defendant’s employment decision was more likely than not based in whole or in part on discrimination.’”
[Cleaned up.]
Applying the law, the Court reasoned that while defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the manager due to her violation of safety rules, plaintiff’s claims were nevertheless entitled to go to a jury because she had provided sufficient competent evidence that her termination was based, at least in part, on her gender based on sexist comments in the workplace.
The Second Circuit’s decision demonstrates that victims of discriminatory termination are entitled to their day in court, even if and when the termination was based in part on legitimate reasons. If you believe you were discriminated against by an employer, speak to an experienced employment attorney right away to learn your rights.