Discrimination claims turn on the motive for the employment decision at issue. Accordingly, cases often focus on the decision-maker. What comments has he made that might suggest prohibited bias? Whom else has she made decisions about under similar circumstances? What did she know and when did she know it? When did he make the decision, and what evidence supports his explanation? Discovery, motion practice, and trial may indeed consist of much wrangling about the decision―who made it and when―with plaintiffs’ lawyers trying to expand the field, and defense lawyers trying to build walls around a single decision-maker who is untainted by bias. The plaintiff’s lawyer wants more targets, more sets of facts from which adverse inferences might be drawn. The defense lawyer wants fewer targets.

• Discrimination claims often hinge on the motive behind employment decisions, leading to extensive scrutiny of the decision-maker’s comments, knowledge, and timing, with plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking to expand the field of scrutiny and defense lawyers aiming to limit it to a single, unbiased decision-maker.
• Involving multiple people in employment decisions can increase the risk of unhelpful evidence and bias claims, as seen in scenarios where delayed communication and additional input complicate the defense and potentially introduce retaliation claims.

Yet, the defendant itself can sometimes be its own worst enemy here, making more targets for the plaintiff to shoot at. Why do multiple...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi1gFBVV95cUxPNlU2UUN6WFV1Z2Zkck5uZXlf...