Taylor Hodson/Sharon Gans link
Date: July 27, 2007 03:59AM
Funny that Sharon Gans has a staffing agency. So does Robert Burton's Fellowship of friends! Sharons' former husband, Alex Horn, was Burton's "teacher" before Burton founded the Fellowship of Friends.
I've never heard of Gans or Horn being racist, but I know they do discriminate against homosexuals. Rosie O'Donnell can attest to that.
***
'Reverse Religious' Bias
Claim Can Go to Trial
An employee who contended that she was not promoted because her supervisor favored members in a religious group should have been granted a trial on her claim against Kelly Services Inc. for reverse religious discrimination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled May 29 (Noyes v. Kelly Servs. Inc., 9th Cir., No. 04-17050, 5/29/07).
Lynn Noyes claimed that she was passed over for promotion because a supervisor was a member of a small religious group, the Fellowship of Friends, and that he "repeatedly favored and promoted other Fellowship members." Noyes was not a member.
Not a 'Protected Class' Case
Ordinarily, to establish a religious discrimination case under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an employee has to show that he or she is in a "protected class," the court said.
However, "Noyes does not claim that she was part of a protected class, i.e., that she adheres to a particular religion," the court said.
"Rather, her claim is that her lack of adherence to the religious beliefs promoted by the management of Kelly Services was the genesis of the discrimination," the court said.
"The Tenth Circuit's discussion on this point is instructive," the court said, citing Shapolia v. Los Alamos National Laboratory, 992 F.2d 1033, (10th Cir. 1993). In that case, "the court reasoned that the 'protected class' showing required in a traditional race or sex discrimination claim does not apply to this type of non-adherence or reverse religious discrimination claim because it is the religious beliefs of the employer, and the fact that the employee does not share them, that constitute the basis of the religious discrimination claim," the court explained.
"The central issue in this case is whether Noyes's evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to pretext," the court said. Kelly Services stated, as a nondiscriminatory, legitimate reason for not promoting Noyes, that management reached a consensus decision to promote another employee. Noyes argued that the reason was a pretext for religious bias, the court said.
Noyes presented specific, substantial evidence that undermined the credibility of the Kelly Services' reasons for not promoting her, the court decided. Her "overarching complaint is that membership in the Fellowship permeated the promotion process and that [William] Heinz, a Fellowship member and ultimate decision-maker, exercised his supervisory authority in favor of Fellowship members," it said.
Noyes presented evidence that she was more qualified than the fellowship member promoted, the appeals court noted. She had been on the job six years longer and had a master of business administration degree. She also showed that Heinz told other employees that she was not interested in the promotion and, as a result, she was not fully considered, the court said.
"Based on this evidence, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that religiously-motivated discrimination was behind Heinz's promotion" of the fellowship member, the court said.
Noyes also demonstrated that Heinz showed favoritism toward a junior, less qualified fellowship member, paying the other employee $4,000 a year more than he paid Noyes, the court added. Further, Noyes offered evidence that Heinz repeatedly brought in fellowship members as temporary contractors, the court said.
In addition, she presented statistics to support her claim of favoritism toward fellowship members in hiring and promotion, it said.
"Although we agree that this statistical evidence standing alone was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, coupled with Noyes's other evidence, the numerical picture buttressed Noyes's challenge that Kelly Services' proffered reasons for its promotion decision were a pretext for unlawful discrimination," the appeals court said, reversing the lower court's dismissal and sending the case back for reconsideration.