Discrimination is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In instances where there are discriminatory actions or practices in the workplace, expert lawyer Tayeb Hyderally can offer his assistance or counsel. He has successfully litigated and practiced employment law for many years and has also made it his goal to inform employers and employees of the various aspects involved in keeping the workplace free from such discriminatory activities. Ty Hyderally shares his vast knowledge and years of experience in the field of employment law with individuals in order to reduce instances of discrimination in the workplace.
Swenson V. Schwan’s Consumer Brands North America
The only way to substantiate a case is to present valid evidence and without it there just is not a case. In this employment law case there was more than just circumstantial evidence and more than simply pretext. A San Antonio federal court heard the case against Schwan’s and viewed evidence that the employer had falsified information. However, the trouble was that the employee, Swenson, did not provide enough evidence that actions pursued by Schwan’s were motivated by age discrimination. Many experts in the area of employment law felt that this false explanation on the part of the employer should have been enough to make a jury decide the factual issues.
Why was Swenson Fired?
Schwan’s claim is that the termination of Mr. Swenson was due to violations pertaining to vacation policies. However, Swenson alleged that the policy did not hold to the true form of a “policy” and that the vacation pay he had requested was granted without dispute. Swenson also presented key evidence which indicated that the employer’s reasons for his termination had changed numerous times. This alone can be enough evidence to show that the explanations offered by the employer had been falsified. However, the court chose to disregard the evidence brought in by Swenson and felt that the employer believed the vacation policy had been violated by the employee. Again, this trial could have been one that was heard and determined by a jury due to the nature of the evidence.
Mr. Swenson alleged that the employer had made many different age related comments about him. He was frequently referred to as “my disabled dad.” When eating at restaurants, the employer would ask for the “senior citizen’s menu” for Swenson who was only 48 years of age. The court threw these out and credited them as “stray remarks.” The remarks were not made at the time of termination nor were they made by the one who made the determination of termination close to the time Swenson was fired. Had they been made when he was terminated or very close to that time it would have changed this entire case. Mr. Swenson also provided some evidence that proved the employer was not following its own disciplinary policies and stated that younger workers had far better treatment than he did. This evidence was disregarded by the court stating that these facts by themselves did not require a denial of summary judgment.