Tayeb Hyderally chose the field of employment law because of its great diversity. Ty Hyderally works diligently to protect employees and employers from participating in or being the target of discriminatory practices in the workplace. Many times it can be difficult to prove that an employer’s action was retaliatory or discriminatory in nature; but companies must be ready to defend these types of claims from those who are familiar with employment law. Cases like EEOC v The Boeing Company cause companies to pay a little more attention to some of the practices going on in the business. When discriminatory or retaliatory actions occur expert lawyers such as Ty Hyderally are ready to present the employment law case before the courts.
Antonia Castron was an employee at The Boeing Company. After she complained of being in a hostile work environment she was suddenly transferred to a different work group and only two months later she was terminated. One of her co-workers verified that Ms. Castron’s supervisor was known to make frequent derogatory and demeaning remarks about women in general. Although the bulk of these derogatory comments were not specifically aimed at Ms. Castron, the courts deemed that there was enough to inference to consider it discriminatory in nature.
The court considered Boeing’s actions as they stated that they had legitimate reasons, non-discriminatory reasons to transfer and eventually terminate Ms. Castron. They cited that she had requested a transfer and that she had low RIF scores. But the Ninth Circuit Court decided that there was enough evidence for the case to go to trial. Ms. Castron’s lawyers stated that Castron was transferred instead of the male co-worker she had complaints about; and it was possible that she was moved into a job that was known to the less secure with the intent of eliminating the position at a later date. They deemed this could certainly have been motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory intent, or both.
There was much evidence that caused Ms. Castron’s transfer to be questionable including no other engineers being transferred to that particular department and her supervisors had previously refused her a transfer and then promised to transfer her to the department she had requested without following through. They also told her that her RIF scores would not be evaluated during her period of training. The Courts found that the RIF evaluation scores that supposedly led to her termination were pre-textual. Several employees gave testimony to the fact that Ms. Castron’s former evaluations were ignored and supervisors only considered the ones which were given during the two month’s training she underwent. Although the company cited RIF evaluation scores as part of the reason for termination, since Ms. Castron had previously complained about harassment and discrimination these were not enough to keep the EEOC from launching a suit against the employer. Retaliation lawsuits are sure to occur even though it seemed as though the company had followed proper procedures to eliminate Ms. Castron. Employment law is in place to protect employees from these types of retaliatory and discriminatory practices, even though cleverly disguised.