Cham v. Station Operators, Inc.
685 F.3d 87
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Cham, a Muslim immigrant from The Gambia, alleged Title VII race and national origin discrimination and FMLA retaliation against Station Operators, a division of Exxon Mobil.
- Two trials occurred: first, Title VII claims were dismissed and FMLA retaliation went to the jury, which Cham won; second, a new trial on the FMLA claim was granted and then Cham lost.
- Cham returned from FMLA leave to reduced and fluctuating hours; supervisor Pelletier oversaw scheduling.
- A prior incident on December 20, 2004 led to Cham’s probation for failing to notify about an absence.
- After Cham’s FMLA leave, hours were reduced and more shifts were assigned to a new hire covering Cham’s shifts; Cham claimed these actions were discriminatory.
- The district court granted a new trial on the FMLA retaliation claim due to prejudicial evidence unrelated to the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 50 dismissal of Title VII disparate treatment. | Cham argues the evidence showed discriminatory intent. | Station Operators contends the evidence supported a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. | Affirmed; no reasonable jury could find pretext. |
| Grant of Rule 59 new trial on FMLA retaliation. | Irrelevant evidence from hostile environment claims prejudiced the verdict. | New trial warranted to prevent injustice from prejudicial evidence. | Affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| In limine exclusions of pre-September 2004 hours and panic-attack testimony. | Exclusions deprived Cham of relevant context supporting retaliation. | Evidence would be confusing or irrelevant for FMLA retaliation damages and connection to willfulness. | Affirmed; evidentiary rulings within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes framework for discriminatory-treatment claims (prima facie case, pretext))
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (describes burden-shifting and ultimate persuasion in discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext and burden-shifting interplay; shifts to pretext evidence)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (adverse action and supervisor liability considerations in harassment cases)
- Kosereis v. Rhode Island, 331 F.3d 208 (1st Cir. 2003) (evidence of similarly situated employees may show pretext)
- U.S. v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1983) (existence of pretext and proof standards in discrimination cases)