Tom Cruz v. Googlio Corp.
Background / Scenario
Scenario
Googlio, a prosperous software corporation, is based in the Silicon Valley of the East Coast: Fairfax, Virginia. Sergio Bernard is a Supervisor for Googlio's Operating System Division. He has worked for Googlio for the past 9 years. He has been characterized as very friendly, loud, and outgoing. Although a very good employee, Sergio has very outspoken religious beliefs, and occasionally makes exaggerated comments about people who adhere to Scientology. His coworkers do not mind his sometimes obscene remarks, and usually believe he is joking.
Tom Cruz has worked for Googlio for the past 5 years. Linus Turner, who is Googlio's Search Engine Division Manager, considers Tom his right hand and a stellar employee. Tom has won numerous "Employee of the Month" awards. Tom is also a devout member of the church of Scientology.
Tom was recently promoted from the Search Engine Division to the Operating System Division. On his first day in his new position Grace Harper, the Human Resource Director, informed Tom of Operating System Division policies. Then she introduced him to Sergio Bernard, Supervisor of the Operating Systems Division. When Tom met Sergio for the first time, employees noticed that Sergio was unusually reserved.
Tom's early work with the Operating Systems Division was impressive, but within two months of moving to the division Tom was fired by Sergio for divulging company secrets through email. Tom had sent an email to some of his former coworkers in the Search Engine Division, describing his new job, and in the email Tom had included some details about the current project he was working on. Sergio claims that Tom's email was found in a random email check.
Tom is suing Googlio for wrongful termination due to religious discrimination.
Questions Presented
Legal Question:
Is Googlio liable for discriminating on the basis of religion?
Supporting Case:
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 141 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1998),
Plaintiff, a lifeguard for city, sued the city and her two immediate supervisors for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff alleged that the two supervisors had created a sexually hostile atmosphere at the beach by repeatedly subjecting her and other female lifeguards to uninvited and offensive touching and lewd remarks, and that their conduct (as agents of the city) amounted to discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals (which had reversed the district court). The court decided that an employer may be held vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct as well as that of the plaintiff.
Opposing Case:
Gold v. Gallaudet College, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 17616 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
A former employee filed an employment discrimination action for violation of her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that the promotion of the coworker to the supervisory position constituted religious harassment by the college. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s, despite evidence of anti-semitic remarks made by the promoted coworker, finding that the college rebutted the employee's accusation of discriminatory intent with plausible, non-pretextual reasons for the promotion that were supported by competent evidence.
Ethical Question:
Did the parties behave ethically in this case?
Legal Elements
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). We have repeatedly made clear that although the statute mentions specific employment decisions with immediate consequences, the scope of the prohibition "'is not limited to "economic" or "tangible" discrimination,'" and that it covers more than "'terms' and 'conditions' in the narrow contractual sense." Thus . . . sexual harassment so "severe or pervasive" as to "'alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment'" violates Title VII. (citations omitted)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807, 118 S. Ct. 2275, 141 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1998),
Lexis Nexis Case Bank
You have been given a list of cases specific to your trial to help you complete Trial Prep assignments, all of which are accessible directly via Lexis Nexis:
From this bank of cases, at least 3 of the cases are guaranteed to be useful to your side of the trial regardless of if you are representing the plaintiff or the defendant. Realize that both sides of the trial are sharing the same bank of cases, so be sure to choose the trials most helpful to your argument when selecting cases. Also, ensure you use skills learned in your legal research assignment to ensure your cases are both properly shepardized and have binding precedent in Virginia. THE CASES YOU SELECT ARE NOT BINDING PRECEDENT UNLESS THEY ARE FROM A VIRGINIA APPELLATE COURT OR A FEDERAL COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER VIRGINIA.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008).
Baqir, v. Principi, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82950 (W.D.N.C. 2006).
Larsen, v. Great Eastern Resort Corp., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4908 (E.D.Va. 1998).
Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments, LLC, 828 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2016).
Brown v. Perry, 184 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 1999).
Legard, v. England, 240 F. Supp. 2d 538 (E.D.Va. 2002).
Featherstone v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 12518 (4th Cir. 1995).
Weiss v. United States Of America, 595 F. Supp. 1050 (E.D.Va. 1984).
Witness List
Plaintiff Client Witness:Tom Cruz (35), former Googlio Operating Systems Division senior project developer.
Plaintiff Friendly Witness: Linus Turner (47), Googlio Search Engine Division Manager.
Defendant Client Witness: Sergio Bernard (35), Googlio Operating Systems Division Manager.
Defendant Friendly Witness: Grace Harper (42), Googlio Human Resources Director.