Time & Attendance
By Jon Hyman
Jul. 19, 2016
An employee claims her supervisor advised her not to apply for an open position because “she is a single mother with kids and if [she] had to take time off work, it would jam [us] up for getting someone to cover the scheduling.”
The employee sues for gender discrimination. She wins in a landslide, right?
Edwards’ statements, if true, merely reflect his concern for the efficiency with which the company operated. Although the statements may have been insensitive to Weber’s relative position as a single mother, they do not, without some inferential leap or presumed ill intention, provide direct evidence of discrimination. This is especially so where, as here, Weber was offered the actual opportunity to apply for the position or, at the least, conduct further inquiry into the application process. We therefore hold the trial court did not err in concluding appellant failed to produce direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
I believe that Weber is an anomaly. To that end, take a look at this passage from the dissenting opinion, which is right on the money:
In this writer’s humble opinion, I disagree. I believe Edwards’ statements to Weber that he did not want her to apply for the service scheduler position because she is a single mother, if true, constitutes direct evidence of unlawful sexual stereotyping.
Schedule, engage, and pay your staff in one system with Workforce.com.
federal law, minimum wage, pay rates, state law, wage law compliance
Staffing Management4 proven steps for tackling employee absenteeism
absence management, Employee scheduling software, predictive scheduling, shift bid, shift swapping
Time and Attendance8 ways to reduce overtime and labor costs
labor costs, overtime, scheduling, time tracking, work hours