Cassandra Domino v. Johnson Controls International, PLC

New York, New York civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant 42:2000e-2e Job Discrimination (Unlawful Employment Practices) law theory.



"42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e) is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This law applies to all employers, including private employers, state and local governments, and labor unions.



To establish a claim for employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e), an employee must prove the following elements:



They are a member of a protected class (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin).

They were subjected to an adverse employment action (e.g., termination, demotion, suspension, etc.).

The adverse employment action was motivated by their membership in the protected class.



The employee can establish the motive element of their claim through direct evidence, such as a statement by the employer that they were being discriminated against. However, direct evidence is rare. In most cases, the employee will need to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove motive. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does not directly prove motive but allows a reasonable inference of motive to be drawn.



Some examples of circumstantial evidence that may be used to prove motive include:



The employer made discriminatory statements about the employee or other members of their protected class.

The employee was treated differently than other employees who were not members of their protected class.

The employer's decision to take an adverse employment action against the employee was inconsistent with company policy or past practice.

The employee was qualified for the job but was passed over for a promotion or other opportunity.

The employer's decision to take an adverse employment action against the employee was made shortly after the employee engaged in protected activity, such as complaining about discrimination or participating in an investigation.



If an employee is successful in proving a claim for employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e), they may be entitled to a number of remedies, including:



Back pay

Front pay

Reinstatement

Injunctive relief

Compensatory damages

Punitive damages



If you believe that you have been discriminated against under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e), you should contact an attorney to discuss your legal options. An attorney can help you determine whether you have a valid claim and can represent you in court if necessary.



Here is an example of a case under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e):



Facts:



Jane Doe is a Black woman who was employed as a sales representative at Acme Corporation.

Jane's supervisor, John Smith, frequently made racist comments to her and other Black employees.

Jane was consistently passed over for promotions and opportunities, even though she was qualified for them.

After Jane complained about the discrimination to her HR department, she was fired.



Issue:



Did Acme Corporation discriminate against Jane on the basis of her race?



Holding:



Yes. Acme Corporation discriminated against Jane on the basis of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e).



Reasoning:



The court found that Jane had established a prima facie case of race discrimination by showing that she was a member of a protected class, that she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and that she was qualified for the job but was passed over for promotions and opportunities.



The court also found that Acme Corporation had failed to rebut Jane's prima facie case with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. The court noted that Acme Corporation's supervisor had frequently made racist comments to Jane and other Black employees, and that Jane had been fired after complaining about the discrimination to her HR department.



The court therefore held that Acme Corporation had discriminated against Jane on the basis of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)."



Google Bard

11/09/2023 21 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Jocelyn A. Merced, Esq. dated November 9, 2023 re: matter has been resolved in principle.. Document filed by Johnson Controls International, PLC..(Merced, Jocelyn) (Entered: 11/09/2023)

11/09/2023 22 ORDER OF DISMISSAL... It is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within sixty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court by the deadline to reopen to be "so ordered" by the Court. Per Paragraph 5.B of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/9/23) (yv) (Entered: 11/09/2023)