• Sunday, June 24, 2012

    disparate treatment analysis

    disparate treatment analysis

    and found that complainant failed to show that similarly-situated

    co-workers were treated more favorably under similar circumstances.

    Disparate Treatment - Disability

    As a threshold matter, a complainant claiming protections under

    the Rehabilitation Act must show that s/he is an individual with a

    disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.  An individual

    with a disability is one who has, has a record of having, or is regarded

    as having an impairment that substantially limits one or more major

    life activities.  29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g).  Major life activities include

    caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,

    speaking, breathing, learning, and working.  29 C.F.R. ' 1630.2(i).4

    For purposes of further analysis, we assume, arguendo, without finding,

    that complainant established that he is an individual with a disability

    and is entitled to coverage under the Rehabilitation Act.

    In general, disparate treatment claims, such as the complaint herein,

    are examined under a tripartite analysis whereby a complainant must

    first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting

    facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of

    discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor

    in the adverse employment action.  McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

    411 U.S. 792, 802-804 (1973); Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438

    U.S. 567 (1978).  The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a

    legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.  Texas Department of

    Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).  If the agency is

    successful, the burden reverts back to the complainant to demonstrate by

    a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons were a pretext

    for discrimination.  At all times, complainant retains the burden of

    persuasion, and it is his/her obligation to show by a preponderance of

    the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason.

    St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); U.S. Postal

    Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-716 (1983).

    Post a Comment

    How to win your civil rights discrimination eeoc complaint © 2015. All Rights Reserved | Powered by-Blogger | Designed by-Dapinder