Charge Responses

Basis of ChargeResponseSexual HarassmentQuid Pro QuoIn asserting sexual harassment claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of discrimination. In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he / she is a member of a protected class; (2) subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based upon sex/gender; (4) the charging party suffered a tangible employment action from his/her acceptance or rejection of his/her supervisors sexual harassment. Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case.The employer has no defense should a prima facie case be established. They must produce evidence of non-discriminatory explanation of the employment action. Hostile Work Environment – Supervisor or ManagerIn asserting sexual harassment claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of discrimination. In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he / she is a member of a protected class; (2) subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based upon sex/gender; (4) the actions of the supervisor / manager constitute severe or pervasive sexual harassment. Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case.If there is a prima facie case, the employer must prove it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and the complainant unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative and/or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm. Hostile Work Environment – Coworker In asserting sexual harassment claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of discrimination. In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he / she is a member of a protected class; (2) subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based upon sex/gender; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to correct it or the employer had a policy and or procedure against discrimination and failed to implement and enforce it. Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case.Race / Color In asserting race / color discrimination claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981); Raymond v. Ameritech Corporation, 422 F.3d 600, 610 (7th Cir. 2006). In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he / she is a member of a protected class; (2) he / she was performing at a level that met ECCA’s legitimate expectations; (3) he / she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) he /she was treated differently than a similarly situated person outside his / her protected class. See Raymond, 442 F.3d at 610. Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case.Gender In asserting gender discrimination claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his / her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981); Raymond v. Ameritech Corporation, 422 F.3d 600, 610 (7th Cir. 2006). In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he / she is a member of a protected class; (2) he / she was performing at a level that met ECCA’s legitimate expectations; (3) he / she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) he /she was treated differently than a similarly situated person outside his / her protected class. See Raymond, 442 F.3d at 610. Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case. Religion In asserting religious discrimination claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981); Raymond v. Ameritech Corporation, 422 F.3d 600, 610 (7th Cir. 2006). In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he / she has a bona fide religious belief that is in conflict with the requirement of the job (2) he/she has informed the employer of the belief; (3) he / she has suffered an adverse action for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case.If they can demonstrate a prima facie case, the burden falls to the employer to prove no accommodation was available or that the accommodation would discriminate against others seeking to observe their religious belief.National Origin In asserting national origin discrimination claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of discrimination. In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he / she is a member of a protected class; (2) he / she was performing at a level that met ECCA’s legitimate expectations; (3) he / she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) he /she was treated differently than a similarly situated person outside his / her protected class. See Raymond, 442 F.3d at 610. Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case.Disability In order to succeed on either his / her claim for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or retaliation based on her disability, Charging Party will have to establish that he / she had a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). Charging Party cannot meet this burden, and thus each of her claims must necessarily fail.“Disability” with respect to an individual is: (1) “a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity of that individual,” (2) “a record of such an impairment,” or (3) “being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 193 (2002). A “physical impairment” includes “any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine.” Toyota, 534 U.S. at 194-95 (quoting 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(i)(2001)). Merely having an impairment does not make one disabled for the purposes of the ADA. Id. at 195. Rather, Charging Party has the burden to demonstrate that the impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Id. “The impairment’s impact must also be permanent or long term.” Id. at 198. The ADA does not define the term “major life activity.” However, the EEOC guidelines under the ADA define “major life activity” to include “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1995). To be substantially limited in performing manual tasks, “an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives.” Toyota, 534 U.S. at 198. Household chores, bathing, and brushing one’s teeth are among the types of manual tasks of central importance to people’s daily lives and should be part of the assessment in determining whether claimants are substantially limited in performing manual tasks. Id. at 202-03. In order to establish a substantial limitation on working, the claimant must demonstrate a significant restriction in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes for someone with her training. EEOC v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 243 F.3d 1012, 1017 (7th Cir. 2001). There is no evidence to demonstrate that Charging Party’s ______________ substantially limit a major life activity. … Because Charging Party cannot show that he / she is actually disabled within the meaning of the Act, he/ she cannot recover on her disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims. AccommodationEven if Charging Party could establish that he / she is a qualified individual with a disability, he/ she cannot establish that ECCA failed to reasonably accommodate his / her disability. If an employee puts his/her employer on notice of his/her disability, the “ADA requires that employer and employee engage in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation.” EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 417 F.3d 789, 797 (7th Cir. 2005). Liability under the ADA attaches only if “the employer’s failure to engage in an interactive process resulted in a failure to identify an appropriate accommodation for the qualified individual.” Rehling v. City of Chicago, 207 F.3d 1009, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Sears, 417 F.3d at 797 (“employer will be liable only if it bears responsibility for the breakdown of the interactive process.”). In making this determination, “courts should look for signs of failure to participate in good faith or failure by one of the parties to make reasonable efforts to help the other party determine what specific accommodations are necessary.” See Beck v. University of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1135 (7th Cir. 1996) (“courts should attempt to isolate the cause of the breakdown and then assign responsibility.”).Retaliation To make a prima facie claim of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must prove:In asserting his/her claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his / her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of retaliation. In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he engaged in an activity protected by Title VII; (2) this exercise of protected rights was known to the employer; (3) the employer thereafter took adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and (4)there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. (See Raymond, 442 F.3d at 610. See Ford v. General Motors Corp., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 20501 (6th Cir. 2002); Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Court, 201 F.3d 784, 792 (6th Cir. 2000). Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case. Age In asserting age discrimination claims, Charging Party must produce enough evidence in his / her prima facie case to give rise to an initial presumption of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981); Raymond v. Ameritech Corporation, 422 F.3d 600, 610 (7th Cir. 2006). In order to establish a prima facie case, Charging Party must show: (1) he / she is a member of a protected class, 40 years or older; (2) he / she was qualified for the job; (3) he / she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) he /she was treated differently than a similarly situated person outside his / her protected class. See Raymond, 442 F.3d at 610. Here, Charging Party cannot establish the ______ , _______, and ______ prongs of a prima facie case.Constructive DischargeTo prevail on a claim for constructive discharge, Charging Party must show both that a hostile work environment existed and “that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that his/her resignation qualified as a fitting response.” Rooney v. Koch Air, LLC, 410 F.3d 376, 382-83 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)). ,[object Object],Typical Charge Outline Date Respondent Name Title Address City, State Zip Phone Email Investigator Name Title Equal Opportunity Employment Commission Address City, State, Zip Re:EEOC Charge No: Charging Party: Respondent: Dear Investigator Name: This letter will serve as the position statement of Eye Care Centers of America, Inc. (“ECCA”) in response to the Charge by ____________ alleging discrimination because of his / her ___________________ . Responses to your request for information are included herein. This position statement is based on the information ECCA has to date pursuant to inquiries concerning the allegations made by Charging Party in the charge. ECCA reserves the right to supplement or amend this position statement as additional information becomes available. ECCA considers all information it provides the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in connection with the above-referenced charge to be confidential and requests that the EEOC restrict any dissemination of the information provided during the course of this investigation to only those people with a need to know. Toward this end, please provide me with prior written notice if any of the information provided to the EEOC is to be released by your agency to anyone outside the EEOC, including Charging Party or his attorney. INTRODUCTION Create paragraph(s) with an executive summary of charge. ECCA denies Charging Party’s allegations of _________________________. As shown below, Charging Party was not discriminated against in any way. … There is no merit to Charging Party’s claims. As such, the charge should be dismissed. COMPANY OVERVIEW ECCA is a nationally established retailer of eyewear and other optical goods. ECCA is incorporated in the State of Texas and employs approximately _______ people in the state of _____________ under the trade name of __________. There are typically three different functions in the delivery of eyewear: an exam with an optometrist, retail sales floor assistance to help select frames and lens options, and a laboratory function that is responsible for the production of quality eyewear. Each location is managed by a General Manager who is responsible for overseeing the laboratory and retail operations. Subordinate to the General Manager may be a Retail Manager and/or a Lab Manager, depending upon the size of the store. The General Manager reports to a Territory Director. ECCA has promulgated, and is committed to, a policy of nondiscrimination promoting equal employment opportunities throughout the Company. ECCA provides employees with a copy of ECCA’s Associate Handbook, which contains its nondiscrimination policy and complaint procedure, and employees acknowledge their receipt of the handbook. Excerpts of the relevant policies from the Handbook are attached hereto as Exhibit “___.” Charging Party’s acknowledgment is attached hereto as Exhibit “_____.” FACTUAL BACKGROUND Outline the Charge and case facts, including information specific to the Charging Party, such as performance, tenure, job title, and case related facts. DISCUSSION Make charge specific statement response; see above. Discuss the facts of the case as related to this specific statement response. Discuss why Charging Party’s claims are not valid. CONCLUSION ECCA is an Equal Opportunity Employer and takes great care in ensuring that its employment practices adhere to all applicable federal and state employment laws. … The charge does not merit further consideration and should be dismissed. If you are in need of any additional information, or have questions concerning this position statement or the supporting documentation, please feel free to call at your convenience. Very truly yours, Respondent name

Charge Responses

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (10)

Similar a Charge Responses

Similar a Charge Responses (20)

Charge Responses