 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cook v. State8/31/1999
STATEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION:
...
A. I have been on the register for promotion to Senior Technician for about one year. On July 23, 1991, two other male applicants I and were interviewed to fill one Senior Technician position in Rigby and one in Idaho Falls. I felt that my interview went well. The position in Rigby was filled by one of the male applicants, who, I believe, basically had the position before the interview. The other male applicant was not as qualified for the Idaho Falls position as I was.
B. On July 24, 1991, I was told by the Resident Engineer, Devin Rigby, that the promotion offering had been closed and that he was not going to fill the position at that time. He originally stated that it was because "we don't have the workload." I did not feel that was the reason so I asked for the real reason for his decision. He stated that he "did not like my District 6 attitude" and that he didn't like me personally. I asked how he could form an opinion of me when he had not even known me. He said he had been told by someone else, but would not tell me who it was. I asked how I rated in the interview, and he stated that I scored about the same as the other applicants. He then suggested that I should "use the fact that I was a woman in the next interview. Maybe it would help."
C. I believe Mr. Rigby's decision to close the promotion was based on my sex, as I was the only female applicant, as well as the only applicant qualified for the position. I further believe his decision was based on my sex when he stated that I should "use the fact that I am female" on later interviews.
Because Title VII claims are intended to be filed by those not legally trained, such claims must be construed liberally. Green v. Los Angeles County. Supt. of Sch., 883 F. 2d 1472, 1476 (9th Cir. 1989); Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F. 2d 455, 458 (5th Cir 1970). However, when suit is brought on claims that were not included in the employee's original EEOC compliant, the Court may hear the new claims only if they are "like or reasonably related to the allegations of the EEOC charge." Brown v. Puget Sound Elec. Apprenticeship & Training Trust, 732 F. 2d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 1984)(quoting Oubichon v. Northern American Rockwell Corp., 482 F. 2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1973)).
When deciding whether a claim is like or reasonably related to the claim contained in the EEOC charge, the court must determine if the additional charge would have been encompassed in the EEOC investigation. Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F. 2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Green, 883 F. 2d at 1476). But if the two claims are not so closely related that a second administrative investigation would be redundant, the EEOC must be allowed to investigate the dispute before the employee may bring a Title VII suit. Stache v. International Union of Bricklayers, 852 F. 2d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir. 1988).
In the present case the EEOC adopted the findings of the IHRC. In its report, the IHRC determined, based on its investigation, that no discrimination had occurred when ITD decided to close the Idaho Falls position. The decision only discussed the closing of the Idaho Falls position and not the Mastell promotion at Rigby.
This is not a case where the second administrative investigation would be redundant. The charge of closing the Idaho Falls promotion is different in nature than the decision to promote a less qualified applicant over Cook. If the IHRC and the EEOC were to investigate the promotion of Mastell over Cook, the investigation would have been different. An investigation into the Mastell promotion would have required a review of the questions and test scores of each appli
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Idaho Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|