Question

Case 1

Shane Dawson, a male homosexual, worked for Entek International. Some of Dawson’s co-workers, including his supervisor, made derogatory comments about his sexual orientation. Dawson’s work deteriorated. He filed a complaint with Entek’s human resources department. Two days later, he was fired. State law made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual based on sexual orientation. [Dawson v. Entek International, 630 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2011)] (See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.) (523, Miller)

1. Could Dawson establish a claim for retaliation? Explain.
2. Should homosexuals be a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Discuss the arguments for and against amending federal law to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Answer 1

Yes, Dawson has established a claim for retaliatory discharge, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Under Oregon law, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an individual based on sexual orientation. It is also unlawful for an employer to discharge an individual because that person has filed a complaint. To establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant intentionally retaliated against the employee because he or she filed a discrimination complaint, (2) the defendant did so with the intent of forcing the employee to leave the employment, and (3) the employee left the employment as a result of the retaliation. Dawson engaged in a protected activity when he went to the human resources department and filed a complaint. “The protected activity occurred at most two days before the discharge and the treatment of Dawson was a topic during both the protected activity and the discharge.” Therefore, Dawson has offered enough evidence that “a reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of Dawson on his retaliation claim.” The federal appellate court held that the district court had erred in granting a summary judgment for the employer. The court reversed the decision and remanded the case for trial