Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Turnarund Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bankbuyer who wrote (704)	4/28/2012 5:38:31 PM
From: Covenant	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1876

*Second Circuit interprets Reeves* less favorably to plaintiffs than does the Fourth or Fifth Circuits.** Zimmermann v. Associates First Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. May 31, 2001) - This is a Title VII sex discrimination action alleging wrongful termination. Deborah Zimmermann was a Business Development Director (BDD) for Associates. Associates had 14 BDDs nationwide -- four of whom were female. Their job was to sign up retailers who would offer consumers the ability to purchased the retailers' products on credit under an arrangement with the Associates. The BDDs were supervised by the Operations Vice-President of Retail Sales Finance (OVP). In 1997, Stephen Haslam became the new OVP. On his fifty-first day on the job, he fired Zimmermann. A week later, Haslam recommended the termination of the other three female BDDs. At trial, a jury found in favor of Zimmermann. Associates argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The Second Circuit notes that it relies on a case-specific assessment as to whether evidence of a prima facie case plus pretext is sufficient to create a jury question. It also notes that this approach is less favorable to plaintiffs than the approach of either the Fourth Circuit (if a plaintiff proves a prima faciecase and pretext, her claim must go to a jury unless "there is evidence that precludes a finding of discrimination") or the Fifth Circuit (a prima facie case and evidence of pretext take a case to a jury in the absence of "unusual circumstances that would prevent a rational fact-finder from concluding that the employer's reasons" were discriminatory). However, the Second Circuit finds sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict based on the fact that the Associates non-discriminatory reason for the termination was very weak. The Court also upholds the "missing evidence" jury instruction because the Associates had destroyed personnel records which it had a legal obligation to retain. The Court also upholds a significant award of punitive damages. Click here to see actual case.