A district court clearly erred when it assumed that an inference of sex discrimination necessarily followed when an employee proved a prima facie case of disparate treatment and their employer’s explanation wasn’t credible, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.
While the district court was entitled to substantial deference, the key evidence showed the employee was fired by a woman and replaced by a woman and there was no suggestion that gender “was even remotely a factor in [the defendant’s] decision,” Fourth Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer pointed out.
“On this record, while we conclude that [the employee] made a persuasive case that firing her was probably an unfair business decision, she nonetheless failed to present evidence sufficient for a factfinder to conclude that it was the product of discrimination based on sex,” Neimeyer wrote. “Accordingly, we reverse.”
Judges Julius N. Richardson and U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff of the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation, joined Neimeyer’s decision in Balderson v. Lincare Inc. (VLW 023-2-075).
Florida-based Lincare, a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services, sells an in-home mechanical ventilator that physicians can order for patients. The company’s sales representatives work with physicians, offering guidance on the necessary information for their patients to get coverage for the devices from their insurers or Medicare.
All Lincare employees were required...
In a Nutshell A warm, conversational AI style made people trust an assistant more, even when it was spreading false health information. Simply showing users a “verify this” option did almost noth...