This court should find that Kathleen Bosko presented nondiscriminatory reasons that were pretext for intentional discrimination. Pretext can be proven by showing that the reasons proffered by the defendant did not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct. Latowski v. Northwoods Nursing Ctr., 549 Fed. Appx. 478, 486 (6th Cir. 2013)(unpublished); Gover v. Speedway Super Am., LLC, 284 F. Supp. 2d 858, 864 (S.D. Ohio 2003). Conversely, the circumstances tend to prove that an illegal motivation is more likely. Latowski, 549 Fed. Appx. 478, 485-6; Gover, 284 F. Supp. 2d 858, 864. In pregnancy discrimination cases, the burden on the plaintiff can be satisfied if it can be shown that discriminatory remarks were made directly to the plaintiff,
…show more content…
In Latowski, the defendant claims that the plaintiff’s employment was terminated because she had a lifting restriction due to her pregnancy. The plaintiff disputes this proffered reason by claiming that discriminatory statements made against her show the actual motivation for her termination was in fact her pregnancy. This is very similar to the current case because even though the Defendant has stated that the travel accommodations were denied to the plaintiff because she lacked seniority, made her request after Johnathon Myers, and because no other Master Sculptor was available to complete the project, there were also discriminatory remarks made by Kathleen Bosko. These comments were made right after the Plaintiff requested accommodations and included Bosko reminding the Plaintiff that as a Master Sculptor at Bosko Arts Inc,, she holds a “plum position” in the art world and enjoys “steady employment and employment benefits.” Furthermore, in the case of Latowski, the remarks were made by individuals who were involved in or could influence the decision making of the adverse employment conduct, namely Judy Doyle and Rick Ackerman. Similarly, Kathleen Bosko, the owner of Bosko Arts and the sole individual in charge of denying accommodations to the Plaintiff, made the remarks to the Plaintiff. Also, the remarks were made directly to the plaintiff in Latowski by Doyle, Ackerman, and …show more content…
In Gover, the plaintiff argues that statements made by her previous District Manager and co-workers can support the finding that her termination was not actually motivated by her employer’s proffered reason. Although the court rejects this evidence, the case does state that a plaintiff can prove that an employer’s reasons are in fact pretext for discrimination using “the sheer weight of the circumstantial evidence of discrimination.” Gover, 284 F. Supp. 2d 858, 864. Considering the court in Gover was going to apply this rule when considering the statements, had those statements been about the challenged conduct and been made by individuals who could affect the decision-making of the challenged conduct, they would have been sufficient as circumstantial evidence to question the motivation of the defendant. Ultimately, the statements made in this case by Kathleen Bosko, just as the statements made in Gover and Latowski, can be considered as acceptable evidence in establishing pretext for discrimination. Therefore, this Court should rule that the Defendant’s proffered reasons did not actually motivate the denial of accommodations to the plaintiff, and were thus pretext for intentional
In Latowski, the defendant claims that the plaintiff’s employment was terminated because she had a lifting restriction due to her pregnancy. The plaintiff disputes this proffered reason by claiming that discriminatory statements made against her show the actual motivation for her termination was in fact her pregnancy. This is very similar to the current case because even though the Defendant has stated that the travel accommodations were denied to the plaintiff because she lacked seniority, made her request after Johnathon Myers, and because no other Master Sculptor was available to complete the project, there were also discriminatory remarks made by Kathleen Bosko. These comments were made right after the Plaintiff requested accommodations and included Bosko reminding the Plaintiff that as a Master Sculptor at Bosko Arts Inc,, she holds a “plum position” in the art world and enjoys “steady employment and employment benefits.” Furthermore, in the case of Latowski, the remarks were made by individuals who were involved in or could influence the decision making of the adverse employment conduct, namely Judy Doyle and Rick Ackerman. Similarly, Kathleen Bosko, the owner of Bosko Arts and the sole individual in charge of denying accommodations to the Plaintiff, made the remarks to the Plaintiff. Also, the remarks were made directly to the plaintiff in Latowski by Doyle, Ackerman, and …show more content…
In Gover, the plaintiff argues that statements made by her previous District Manager and co-workers can support the finding that her termination was not actually motivated by her employer’s proffered reason. Although the court rejects this evidence, the case does state that a plaintiff can prove that an employer’s reasons are in fact pretext for discrimination using “the sheer weight of the circumstantial evidence of discrimination.” Gover, 284 F. Supp. 2d 858, 864. Considering the court in Gover was going to apply this rule when considering the statements, had those statements been about the challenged conduct and been made by individuals who could affect the decision-making of the challenged conduct, they would have been sufficient as circumstantial evidence to question the motivation of the defendant. Ultimately, the statements made in this case by Kathleen Bosko, just as the statements made in Gover and Latowski, can be considered as acceptable evidence in establishing pretext for discrimination. Therefore, this Court should rule that the Defendant’s proffered reasons did not actually motivate the denial of accommodations to the plaintiff, and were thus pretext for intentional