Read Microsoft Word - HFGNR045.doc text version

Sample Position Statement Responding to Discrimination Charge Mr./Ms. Enforcement Supervisor U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Re: EEOC Charge No. Employee v. Company Dear Enforcement Supervisor: In the discrimination charge filed on [date], [name] (hereinafter "Charging Party") alleges that the [Company] discriminated against her based on her race (Black) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by placing her on a performance improvement plan, by declining her request to be moved to another position to avoid her performance issues, and by terminating her employment after she failed to satisfy the plan's requirements. Charging Party further alleges that [Company] subjected her to a hostile work environment because her managers criticized her work performance and she received less support than white managers. [Company]'s thorough investigation into Charging Party's claims confirms that there is no evidence to support her allegations of discrimination in any form. Therefore, [Company] respectfully requests that the Charge be dismissed in its entirety. Before addressing the substantive issues raised in the Charge of Discrimination, some preliminary items should be highlighted. First, the information provided below is based on the [Company] 's current understanding of the available evidence. [Company] reserves the right to submit additional relevant information, should any be revealed during its continuing investigation of this matter. Second, [Company]'s submission of information during the course of the Agency's investigation in no way constitutes a waiver of any available defenses or objections that it may seek to raise at a later time in this or any other proceeding. Finally, in accordance with applicable law, including Title VII, and similar state and local regulations, the information provided by [Company] during the course of the Agency's investigation shall be treated as sensitive, kept confidential, and not disclosed to any third parties, except as required by law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Company (background Information about the business). B. Charging Party's Employment at [Company] (give brief employment history and description of prior performance reviews and prior discipline, if any).

HFGNR045

Charging Party commenced employment with [Company] as a part-time Clerk on [date]. During her years at the Company, she applied for and received multiple promotions, favorable reviews and accompanying salary increases, commensurate with her job performance. Most recently Charging Party held the position of [title]. Her duties and responsibilities in that position included [describe and attach job description]. Charging Party held this same position for nearly three years, until her termination for poor performance. C. Despite Management's Support, Charging Party Fails to Improve Her Performance for Three Years. [Describe the background facts ­ here, the issue was poor performance and progressive discipline.] D. Charging Party Fails to Improve or to Expand Her Knowledge of Accounts Receivable, and Is Placed on a Performance Improvement Plan. [Describe progressive performance improvement steps or discipline.] Despite these efforts, Charging Party failed to improve her unacceptable performance, and she was terminated from [Company] employment effective [date]. [Company]'s RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION Under the basic framework imposed by the Supreme Court,1 Charging Party must first present a prima facie case of discrimination by establishing that: (1) She is a member of a protected group; (2) She was qualified for the position held; (3) She suffered an adverse employment action, such as discharge; and (4) Her discharge occurred in circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. See George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 411 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (race discrimination, discharge); Russell v. Principi, 257 F.3d 815, 818 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (same); Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same). If a claimant cannot establish any one of these elements, then her charge must be dismissed. In this case, it simply is impossible for Charging Party to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, and, therefore, her charge must be dismissed. I. It Is Impossible for Charging Party to Establish Even a Prima Facie Case Of Race Discrimination, as She Was Terminated Only After She Failed to Correct Significant Performance Deficiencies for Three Years.

1

See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973).

Charging Party worked for [Company] successfully for many years, and was awarded significant promotions, favorable ratings, and salary increases without regard to race because her performance in other positions warranted such recognition. Regrettably, however, her most recent promotion proved to be overwhelming for Charging Party and a mistake for [the Company]. Despite coaching from the Director and nearly three years to learn the position, Charging Party was never able to actually do the job by herself. Poor performance, not race, was the only motivating factor here. Accordingly, it is impossible for Charging Party to establish even a prima facie case of discrimination in any form, and the pending charge is subject to immediate dismissal on this ground alone. II. It Is Impossible for Charging Party to Establish That [Company]'s Stated Reasons for Her Termination Constitute a Pretext for Race Discrimination. Even if it were possible for Charging Party to overcome this insurmountable evidentiary hurdle, establishment of a prima facie case raises merely a presumption of discrimination, which [Company] effectively has rebutted by articulating legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to terminate her employment ­ her failure to meet objective benchmarks established as performance measurements after three years as a manager. See Mungin v. Katten, Muchin & Zavis, 116 F. 3d 1549, 1554 (D.C. Cir. 1999), citing Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). Thus, Charging Party must prove that Company's stated reasons for its actions constitute a pretext for discrimination. At all times, Charging Party bears the ultimate burden of proving that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-08 (1993); Mungin v. Katten, Muchin & Zavis, 116 F. 3d at 1554; Waterhouse v. District of Columbia, 298 F. 3d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Charging Party alleges that [describe allegations from complaint and refute factual basis]. Nor is Charging Party's allegation that she was denied the opportunity to move to another job probative of race discrimination. The alleged request came only after Charging Party was placed on a performance improvement plan that could lead to termination from employment. Under such circumstances, it makes no sense to simply transfer serious performance problems along to another manager. Charging Party's reference to an unidentified white employee who was "encouraged" to apply for another position by an unknown supervisor is equally unpersuasive. After all, Charging Party herself was promoted repeatedly. Finally, legitimate, business-related criticism of substandard work performance cannot create an actionable hostile work environment as a matter of law. In short, it defies common sense to suggest that the decision to terminate Charging Party from a position in which she continued to feel overwhelmed after three years, after promoting her repeatedly over a period of many years, suddenly was motivated by her race and not her work performance. Accordingly, the pending Charge of Discrimination must be dismissed on this additional ground.

CONCLUSION Without question, the factual evidence in this case confirms that Charging Party's race played no role whatsoever in any decision made with respect to either her previously successful employment or her termination. There are several sound reasons to support the Agency's dismissal of this Charge of Discrimination. Thus, [Company] respectfully requests that the EEOC issue a no probable cause finding in this case and dismiss the pending charge with prejudice, without further delay. Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,

Information

Microsoft Word - HFGNR045.doc

4 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

490178


You might also be interested in

BETA
eCopy, Inc.
Microsoft Word - HFGNR045.doc