The plaintiff, Mrs. Drake is a trained and qualified teacher of American English. She is a Black American citizen. The first defendant is the Headmaster of Governors Dummer Academy and the second Defendant is the Board Governors of Governor Dummer Academy. The facts were that on the tenth of October 2011, the first Defendant summoned the plaintiff in his office and instructed the plaintiff to explain her reasons for her absence at the work place without permission for three consecutive days starting the 4th of October to the 6th of October of 2011. The plaintiff reported to the headmaster that her absence from the workplace was due to the sudden sickness of her husband who has been sickling after suffering serious injuries while serving in the United States military in their war in Iraq. The plaintiff reported that her failure to report her absence or seek leave from the headmaster was primarily because of the suddenness of her husband emergencies illnesses.
The headmaster convened a Board meeting to discuss the conduct of the plaintiff on the 12th of October 2011. In that meeting, it was resolved that the plaintiff be relieved from her job on the grounds of dissertation, irresponsibility and neglect amounting to a breach of contract. In the dismissal letter, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff had absented herself from duty in many cases and that she had exhausted her chances and that a strict observation of the contractual terms, the plaintiff ought to be sacked without any termination benefits.
Grounds for litigation (strengths and weakness of case)
The plaintiff wishes to rely on the general provisions of employment laws. In particular, the plaintiff wishes to rely in the provisions of Title VII, specifically those in relation to disparate treatment. Title VII on disparate treatment seeks to protect members of a protected class from discrimination and or any activity that seeks to disadvantage them. The plaintiff asserts that the first and second defendant treated her discriminatively to the extent of the termination of her job. She cites her race (Black American) as grounds for belonging in the class of protected person. She observes that the first and second defendant applied the law selectively and that they failed to apply the punitive provisions on other employees from different races and particularly from the more common white race which is the majority. In fact, the plaintiff asserts that the headmaster himself, a member of the white race, failed to apply principles of social justice and equality and that his recommendation to the defendant board was in bad faith and ought not be taken into consideration. Finally, the plaintiff prays that the court rules in her favor and order the second defendant to reinstate her into service and that she be awarded damages for the inconveniences and discrimination subjected to. In relation to the second defendant, the plaintiff prays that he be ordered to deliver an apology to the plaintiff and progressively appreciate the fact that America is multiracial and hence embrace the need for coexistence with diverse persons.
Burden of proof chronology and consequences of case
The case falls squarely under Title VII and in particular the matter of disparate treatment. For that reason, the burden of proof chronology to be relied upon will be based on the McDonnell Douglass burden shifting formula. This formula is predicated on the fact that the United States of America is an adversarial system and, therefore, the judge or the jury as the triers of fact would only take a passive role. The latter are expected to merely act as an umpire and listen as the parties argue their cases. In the long run, it will be for the triers of fact to decide based on the evidence adduced and the demeanor and other occurrences to be gathered during the trial process with particular emphasis on the cross examination.
According to the principles of burden shifting as laid in the McDonnell Douglass case, it is for the plaintiff to first establish a case that is prima facie leading to a deduction of discrimination. This step entails the plaintiff taking advantage and having the first bite of the cake. Indeed, this is premised on the fact that he who alleges must proof. For that reason, it is incumbent of the plaintiff to first convince the court through adduction of evidence and corroboration through witnesses a case of discrimination. In this particular case the plaintiff may prove the case by bringing forth any evidence such as teachers, students and even the husband and doctors. In addition, it would be useful for the plaintiff to prove her reasons sufficiently beyond the mere limits of hearsay and speculation. Her assertions and allegations must be backed by documented and recorded evidence that is legal and admissible. In this case, the plaintiff adduced evidence that partly accounted for her absence. It was clear that in the entire duration of her absence that was often unpermitted and unannounced, forty percent was in relation to cases of illness of her husband. The sixty percent was unaccounted for.
According to the burden shifting formula, the defendants are then afforded a chance to articulate through evidence that their actions were justified and not merely discriminatory. In adjudging such evidence, it is often the case that the defendants seek to displace the assertions brought by the plaintiff and cast aspersions into their (plaintiff’s) evidence. This would serve to bolster their defense and lure the triers of fact into believing their side of the case. This is the beauty of the adversarial judicial system. In this case the defendants adduced sufficient evidence in supporting their decision to terminate the services of the plaintiff. First, the defendants adduced evidence to proving that their action was not arbitrary and that indeed the plaintiff was a regular absentee who needed to be disciplined. The defendants adduced evidence to the extent that the decision was not only applied on her and that it was a staff policy that it had to be conformed to by all faculty members. The defendants effectively proved that the plaintiff was wrong and that an application of Title VII was not correct and appropriate. In addition, the defendant proved that the plaintiff had been warned a number of times and that a strict interpretation of the contractual terms entitled them to terminate the services of the teacher thereby repudiating the contract before its expected expiry.
The next phase entailed giving the plaintiff a second biting of the cake. In this phase the plaintiff needs to effectively displace the assertions and counterarguments raised by the defendants. More specifically the plaintiff needs to convince the Court that the defendant’s reasons are a pretext for effecting the discrimination. In proving that, the plaintiff may adduce evidence of other available ways of securing the same objectives without discriminating on her or her protected class. This was not the case as the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove discrimination under the circumstances. The triers of fact ruled in favor of the defendants holding that Title VII and indeed employment laws are there to secure the rights of employees who are innocently discriminated and should not be applied to defend incompetence and disservice.
References
Collins, E. C. (2012). Employment Law Review. Law Business Research, 1-799.
Emerson, R. W. (2009). Business Law. New York: Barron's Educational Series.
Lewis, D. L. (2009). Essentials of Employment Law. New York: CIPD Publishing.
Rush, J., & Ottley, M. (2009). Business Law. New York: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Schmidt, D. (2008). Dealing with Pluralism: A Response to Michael Zigarelli's Article on How Title VII Erodes the Mission of the Religious University. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 61-73.
Shaw, W. H. (2010). Business Ethics: A Textbook With Cases. New York: Cengage Learning.
