concluding that a “mom” comment was a stray remark, stating “a single comment related to a separate employment action made two years prior to [the plaintiffs] nonselection for the Food Service Sales Manager position is not direct evidence of [gender] discrimination.”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a “mom” comment was a stray remark, stating “a single comment related to a separate employment action made two years prior to [the plaintiffs] nonselection for the Food Service Sales Manager position is not direct evidence of [gender] discrimination.”
- holding that plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting her were pretextual where employer provided evidence that plaintiff needed to improve her interpersonal and leadership skills
- rejecting comment that a woman was not hired because she was a mom and would not want to travel as direct evidence of gender discrimination because it required the court to infer gender bias
- “A single comment related to a separate employment action made two years prior to [the plaintiffs] nonselection for the Food Service Sales Manager position is not direct evidence of discrimination.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THOMAS,
Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Shamrock Foods Company should be reversed, and the case remanded for trial.
Peters provided direct evidence of discriminatory intent when she testified that her supervisor, Elliot Begoun, explained that the reason he denied her the position of External Marketing Manager was because she was a “mom” and therefore “couldn’t travel.” This statement, on its face, establishes sex discrimination because it demonstrates clearly impermissible sex-stereotyping. See, e.g., Back v. Hastings On Hudson Union Free Sch. Disk, 365 F.3d 107, 120 (2d Cir.2004) (“[I]t takes no special training to discern stereotyping in the view that a woman cannot ‘be a good mother’ and have a job that requires long hours.... These are not the kind of ‘innocuous words’ that we have previously held to be insufficient ... to provide evidence of discriminatory intent.”); Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 57 (1st Cir.2000) (finding evidence of sex discrimination where employment decision maker questioned plaintiffs “ability to fulfill her work responsibilities should she have a second child”); Sheehan v. Donlen Corp., 173 F.3d 1039, 1044 (7th Cir.1999) (holding decision maker’s “remarks [to plaintiff] and her co-workers ... that she would be happier at home with her children provided direct evidence of discrimination”). Because Peters presented direct evidence of Begoun’s discriminatory animus, she has demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to Begoun’s actual motivation. See Chuang v. U. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115, 1128 (9th Cir.2000).