The issue for the Sara Bellum v. Barbara Wisdom dba Green Valley Landscaping, LLC case, is did Barbara Wisdom, as an owner of Green Valley, discriminate against Sara Bellum on the basis of age?
Facts
Plaintiff Sara Bellum is 55 years old and had worked at Green Valley Landscaping as a receptionist for 10 years before termination. Defendant Barbara Wisdom is the sole owner of Green Valley Landscaping LLC (hereinafter Green Valley). Green Valley employs 25 workers and its business activities affect interstate commerce. Ms. Bellum was terminated on May 14, 2015. On May 14, 2015, Ms. Wisdom claimed that the facts confirm that there was a cash payment for $419.16 that was not turned in, although there was a receipt for this amount. Sara Bellum …show more content…
The reasoning for my conclusion follows, plaintiff Sara Bellum was qualified for the position she held and belonged to the statutory protected class of age 40 or older, and was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (Kubasek et al, 2015). Using the facts the plaintiff was able to give rise to an inference of discrimination, this shifted the burden of proof over to the defendant to prove that there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharge. With supporting facts from the case, Ms. Wisdom was able to confirm that she used her fair judgment as an employer to terminate Sara Bellum based on “reasonable factors other than age” (Kubasek et al, 2015). The determining factors for Ms. Bellum’s termination was due to the disrespectful and unprofessional behavior she exhibited towards a customer, and for displaying a lack of responsibility over her cash drawer, which resulted in approximately $420 to go missing. Since the employer met the standard, the plaintiff can only recover damages under ADEA if they can prove that there was preponderance that the employer’s alleged legitimate reason is a pretext for discrimination (Kubasek et al, 2015). In this case, plaintiff Sara Bellum failed to prove that Ms. Wisdom’s alleged legitimate reason was a pretext for discrimination. There is no proof that Barbara Wisdom stole/hid the money from Sara Bellum’s cash drawer, and there is no preponderance that Barbara Wisdom’s decision to terminate Ms. Bellum was a pretext for discrimination. In conclusion, based on the facts the defendant Barbara Wisdom displayed no age discrimination in her decision to terminate Sara Bellum, therefore, I rule that the defendant party does not owe the plaintiff any compensations for damages that resulted from the
Facts
Plaintiff Sara Bellum is 55 years old and had worked at Green Valley Landscaping as a receptionist for 10 years before termination. Defendant Barbara Wisdom is the sole owner of Green Valley Landscaping LLC (hereinafter Green Valley). Green Valley employs 25 workers and its business activities affect interstate commerce. Ms. Bellum was terminated on May 14, 2015. On May 14, 2015, Ms. Wisdom claimed that the facts confirm that there was a cash payment for $419.16 that was not turned in, although there was a receipt for this amount. Sara Bellum …show more content…
The reasoning for my conclusion follows, plaintiff Sara Bellum was qualified for the position she held and belonged to the statutory protected class of age 40 or older, and was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (Kubasek et al, 2015). Using the facts the plaintiff was able to give rise to an inference of discrimination, this shifted the burden of proof over to the defendant to prove that there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharge. With supporting facts from the case, Ms. Wisdom was able to confirm that she used her fair judgment as an employer to terminate Sara Bellum based on “reasonable factors other than age” (Kubasek et al, 2015). The determining factors for Ms. Bellum’s termination was due to the disrespectful and unprofessional behavior she exhibited towards a customer, and for displaying a lack of responsibility over her cash drawer, which resulted in approximately $420 to go missing. Since the employer met the standard, the plaintiff can only recover damages under ADEA if they can prove that there was preponderance that the employer’s alleged legitimate reason is a pretext for discrimination (Kubasek et al, 2015). In this case, plaintiff Sara Bellum failed to prove that Ms. Wisdom’s alleged legitimate reason was a pretext for discrimination. There is no proof that Barbara Wisdom stole/hid the money from Sara Bellum’s cash drawer, and there is no preponderance that Barbara Wisdom’s decision to terminate Ms. Bellum was a pretext for discrimination. In conclusion, based on the facts the defendant Barbara Wisdom displayed no age discrimination in her decision to terminate Sara Bellum, therefore, I rule that the defendant party does not owe the plaintiff any compensations for damages that resulted from the