Case Reference

MASS

I am posting to see if anyone knows or can help me find case law similar to this:

A woman who was well qualified, more so than her fellow male co-workers, was continually skipped over when it came time for promotions.
Her employer states that the reasons why she was not promoted, was not because she is female but because she refused to dress in "correct" buisness attire for her job, she refused to attend company parties, she refused to associate with fellow employees, and was unable to travel for work due a severly sick child at home. So basically she didnt look the part in a job that required you to "market" yourself. So she was kept in a desk job.

I have heard of a case similar to this in U.S Supreme Court Case I believe or it could have been federal, but can anyone lend some information?

ck

The Supreme Court ruled in Phillips v. ****** Marietta Corp. that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination means that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of sex plus other factors such as having school age children. [See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=400&invol=542 ] However, read the case closely, for even it allows different standards when a " bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise" exists.

I'm unaware, however, of a federal court ruling extending the ****** Marietta logic to the Americans with Disabilities Act and having a disabled child, but you could contact EEOC and ask them.

Your problem, however, is going to be the multitude of factors that have contributed to your non-promotion. The other three reasons, depending upon the jobs, can be shown to be business related and justifiable. And, if your employer uses those standards regardless of the sex of the candidate, it's going to be hard to establish that you were as qualified for the positions as those selected.

Thank You

How do I go about finding sources as you did. I tried to find a US supreme case that involved an employee being fired or not promoted for not dressing correctly or not attending company parties, etc.
I think the keywords I am using are not okay?
Any Help
Thanks

I didn't have to search or google for the court case. I knew of it. It's difficult to search for case law on a wide internet search such as Google. Legal practioners have research services designed especially for that purpose which are accessible only by subscription. However, you may be able to use the subscription of your local public library.

I don't recall a Title VII Supreme Court decision that squarely fits your scenerio. You may be thinking of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, where a woman was denied partnership in an accounting firm, at least in part, because she was too aggressive, cursed like a truck driver, and did not walk, talk, or dress in a feminine manner. She wasn't acceptable to the company because she didn't act like a woman. The Court ruled, in short, "that Title VII forbids employers from discriminating against an employee for failing to live up to gender role expectations." That doesn't appear to apply to your situation. You state that you were told that you didn't dress in business attire, travel, participate fully in company activities, or interact with your co-workers. Those are gender neutral requirements and legitimately very important to success in some jobs.

The Supreme Court has also issued rulings on whether employer dress codes violate Title VII's prohibition on discrimination because of religion, but they won't apply to your situation.

If you think you are being discriminated against, you need to consult with EEOC or your state's human rights agency and get their take on your issue, rather than doing web searches.

Thank You so Much

Thanks for all of your information.
I have a subscription to westlaw and lexis, but trying to figure how they work is another story!!!!

i keep coming up with crazy cases that have nothing to do with what I am looking for!>
But I will take your advice
Thanks
ck