Where a woman presented no evidence that would allow a factfinder to find that sex played any role in her former employer’s decision to terminate her employment, and the alleged male comparator was not similarly situated to the woman, the trial court erred in awarding the woman compensatory and punitive damages.

Background

Lincare Inc. terminated the employment of one of its most productive sales representatives, Chandra Balderson, concluding that she had violated Lincare’s “Corporate Health Care Law Compliance Program” and “Code of Conduct.” Balderson contends that Lincare discriminated against her on the basis of sex because it gave a fellow male employee, who had engaged in similar conduct, only a “final written warning.”

Following a bench trial, the district court found Lincare liable to Balderson and awarded her $30,141 in compensatory damages and $120,000 in punitive damages. In its opinion, the court concluded that the male employee was indeed an appropriate comparator and that Lincare’s proffered explanation for its decision to terminate Balderson’s employment was not credible. And to find Lincare liable on the ultimate issue of discriminatory intent, the court reasoned that because “the only difference” between the comparator’s situation and Balderson’s was that “[the comparator] is male and that Ms. Balderson is female,” it followed that “the disparate treatment between [them] was a result of discriminatory animus.”

Analysis

The district court assumed that...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiWGh0dHBzOi8vdmFsYXd5ZXJzd2Vla2x5LmNv...