An employee claimed discrimination based on his race.  The employee emailed his supervisor complaining of unwanted, offensive, and derogatory comments based on his religion and was subjected to different terms and conditions than employees, not of his race.  The complainant was terminated shortly thereafter.  Although no substantial evidence of discrimination was found on the underlying religious discrimination complaint, substantial evidence was found that the termination was motivated by the complainant’s opposing discrimination. The employer asserted the employee engaged in a romantic relationship with another employee that both unreasonably interfered with the complainant’s ability to perform his job, and negatively affected department morale.  Respondent also asserted a reasonably viable defense that Complainant was a political appointee and policy maker and therefore, not subject to anti-discrimination laws.  Following extensive research, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claim and establish retaliation.  As of March 31, 2022, the case was pending closure.

An employee alleged she was subjected to different terms and conditions than other employees, not of her race. Although she had a history of good performance ratings, her employer transferred her to a different department, placed her on probation for six months, and subsequently terminated her.  An investigation failed to discover a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Complainant’s termination.  A substantial evidence determination was issued on June 10, 2021.  Respondent asserted it had a bona fide nondiscriminatory reason to terminate Complainant. Following extensive research, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to rebut the Respondent’s claim.  As of March 31, 2022, the case was pending closure.

An employee alleged he was subjected to different terms and conditions than other employees, not of his race. The investigation found that the complainant was terminated for performance defects during a specific incident, while other employees not of his race who were involved in the incident only received a verbal warning from their supervisor.  The determination of substantial evidence was issued on June 3, 2021.  Respondent asserted it had a bona fide nondiscriminatory reason to terminate Complainant.  Following extensive research, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to rebut the Respondent’s claim.  As of March 31, 2022, the case was pending closure.

An employee was told her position was being eliminated but she could apply for another position to be eligible for a promotion.  The investigation found substantial evidence of discrimination when it revealed her qualifications exceeded the requirements of the position, and she had been approved for hire by human resources, yet the new director selected another applicant of a different race who had less experience and poor references.    The complainant signed a separate settlement agreement with the employer, which included an agreement to dismiss her complaint.  The Executive Director substituted as the Complainant to pursue public policy goals of training and for the employer to adopt an effective non-discrimination policy.  Upon Respondent completing training requirements in a different matter, the file will be closed.

After approximately 17 years of employment, an employee was advised the employer was going in a different direction and he was terminated.  The investigation found substantial evidence of discrimination when recommendations were made to terminate the employee and hire a replacement, not of his race.  Respondent asserted a bona fide business reason to terminate his employment as well as established a reasonably viable defense that Complainant was a political appointee and policy maker and therefore, not subject to anti-discrimination laws. A determination was issued on June 4, 2021.  Following extensive research, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to rebut the Respondent’s claim. As of March 31, 2022, the case was pending closure.