Hello.
I direct your attention to the case of Luciano v. Olsten Corp, 73 FEP
722 (2d Cir. 1997). See:
"Sex discrimination glass ceiling proved at Olsten," hosted by
fairmeasures.com
http://www.fairmeasures.com/whatsnew/archive/summer97/new06.html
Text of Luciano v. Olsten court decision hosted by Touro Law Center:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/March97/96-7262.html
In that case, the plaintiff proved "glass ceiling" discrimination by
showing:
(1) Company executives treated her in a discriminatory way;
(2) Male employees with poor performance records were treated more
favorably than higher performing women such as the plaintiff;
(3) Statistical data established that women were relegated to "junior"
management positions while men held the top positions within the
company;
(4) A wage disparity existed between men and women at the same job
level.
Key points from the case:
"Luciano presented a prima facie case of discrimination by showing
that she was a qualified woman who was discharged following the
Company's written promise that she would be considered for a promotion
to the position of vice president under circumstances which support an
inference of gender-based discriminatory intent. To begin with, the
jury heard testimony that: (i) William Olsten admitted that when he
promoted Luciano in 1989, senior men in the company complained that
she could not do the job; (ii) senior vice president Ramsey stated,
"Mr. Olsten shouldn't have promised [Luciano] the vice presidency;"
(iii) Bingham, who became Luciano's supervisor in April 1990, admitted
that "there certainly wasn't any intention on my part to consider her
for promotion to vice president;" (iv) Bingham intentionally gave
Luciano an impossible work load without commensurate support staff;
and (v) Luciano was denied the promised review and was not promoted to
vice president, despite the fact that she capably performed jobs that
were previously or subsequently performed by senior vice presidents
Allan Gershlak, Ramsey and Kapalko. Further, the jury heard testimony
that the Company: (i) promoted male employees with poor performance
records to senior management positions; (ii) created new positions for
male employees whose positions were eliminated; (iii) never offered
Luciano, who had an excellent performance record, another position
when Olsten allegedly eliminated the one she held; and (iv) denied her
the opportunity to fill other job vacancies, such as regional
director, for which she was qualified...
...
First, with respect to the defendants' claim of poor performance,
Luciano presented evidence of consistently excellent performance
reviews. Moreover, the jury considered evidence that male employees
with poor performance records were treated more favorably than higher
performing women such as Luciano. For example, Fred Henry, Henry
Pittius and Joseph Stefanelli, who were responsible for over a $3
million loss to the Company, were nevertheless given promotions,
salary raises and transfers to better positions when their unit was
dissolved for lack of productivity...
...
Second, with respect to defendants' claim that Luciano's position was
eliminated as part of a corporate reorganization, the jury heard
testimony that after Luciano's termination in June 1992, her
responsibilities were distributed between two men: (1) Gershlack,
whose unsatisfactory job performance as a regional director resulted
in his transfer into the Marketing Department where he was made senior
vice president of sales and partnership programs, and (2) Burt Slatas,
who was recruited and hired from outside the Company. Within two
months of Luciano's firing, two positions were created in the
Marketing Department which were filled by two men, Ken Pascal and
Stuart Owens...
...
In addition to evidence that male executives were treated more
favorably than Luciano, the jury considered statistical data which
reflected a glass ceiling at the Company and disparity of pay. As
evidence of the Company's pattern and practice of discrimination,
Luciano presented the following statistics. With respect to the 200 to
300 field offices that comprise the Office Services Division of the
Company: (1) more than 80 percent of those offices were run by female
branch managers who were considered "junior management," and (2) there
were no female vice presidents or senior vice presidents in the Office
Services field organization. At corporate headquarters, all positions
at the senior management level, vice president and senior vice
president, were held by males with the exception of Vice President of
Office Administration whose responsibilities include groundskeeping,
mail room, print shop, and other similar activities. In addition,
Luciano offered evidence of a wage disparity between men and women at
the same job level. For example, there was a $10,000 disparity between
the average salary for men and women at the Director's level.
Finally, despite such statistical evidence of wage disparities
between men and women in upper level management positions at the
Company, as well as disparities in the numbers of men and women
holding these positions, the jury also considered testimony by
Director of Human Resource Service Department Gelerman that he did not
investigate the gender-based disparities in the Company's workforce,
nor did he have a policy or practice of investigating terminations to
assure that they were nondiscriminatory."
source: Luciano v. Olsten, hosted by Touro Law Center:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/March97/96-7262.html
Here are citations for several other glass ceiling cases:
GLASS CEILING LITIGATION
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (490 US 228 [1989])
Lindahl v. Air France (930 F.2d 1434 [9th Cir.1991])
Fisher v. Vassar College, (852 F. Supp, 1193 [SDNY 1994])
Jensvold v. Shalala (829 F. Supp. 131 [D. Md. 1993])
http://jonaswelsch.com/articles/glass.html
In the case of Fisher v. Vassar College (852 F. Supp, 1193 [SDNY
1994]), the plaintiff proved her case by presenting statistical
evidence that Vassar had not granted tenure to any married woman in
the hard sciences in the 30 years preceding her tenure review.
"Fisher--whose husband, Armen Fisher, an associate professor of
statistics at Union College Poughkeepsie/Kingston Center in New York,
analyzed the figures she presented as evidence in her case--argued
that in the 30 years preceding her 1985 tenure review, no married
woman had received tenure at Vassar in the hard sciences, which she
defined as mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and
computer science. The judge agreed with this claim."
source: "The Scientists: Woman Biologist's Success" hosted by
Holysmoke.org:
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/fem01.htm
Text of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (490 US 228 [1989]) is available
at hellerhuron.com:
http://www.hellerhuron.com/cases/major.html
Full-text of the other cases may be obtained from the Lexis database
for $9 each. Here are instructions on how to do that:
(1) Go to:
http://web.lexis.com/xchange/forms/uas/casepull.asp
(2) In the "Enter Citation:" box, type the citation. For example, if
you wanted the Jensvold v. Shalala, you'd typ: 829 F. Supp. 131
(3) Press the "search button"
(4) Register your credit card details when prompted
(5) You'll then be given the opportunity to select the case for
purchase.
For example:
Jensvold v. Shalala, CIVIL NO. L-90-3123, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, 829 F. Supp. 131; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
11287; 62 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1177, August 13, 1993, Decided
OVERVIEW: The summary judgment motions of a federal employer on an
employee's Title VII claims for sex discrimination based on disparate
impact and retaliation were denied because employee alleged violations
continuing into the 30 day EEO limitations period.
CORE TERMS: conversation, disparate treatment, fellow, retaliation,
fellowship, summary judgment, continuing violation, counseling, guest,
time-barred ...
------------------
Additional information about proving "glass ceiling" discrimination:
"GLASS CEILING" CASES: A REVIEW AND CRITIQUE by Joel Rudin,
Proceedings of the Southern Academy of Legal Studies in Business
PDF version hosted by lexopolis.com:
http://www.lexopolis.com/salsb/proc/2002rudin.pdf
[This document is in PDF format, so the Adobe Acrobat
Reader is required. If you don't have that, please visit Adobe's web
site:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html ]
Or see HTML version cached by Google:
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:USKhP0GTBzMJ:www.lexopolis.com/salsb/proc/2002rudin.pdf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
"As it is glass ceiling cases are difficult to prove. It is equally
difficult to establish the necessary pattern of discrimination. It is
the rare plaintiff who will be able to prove, with corroboration, that
a company executive has stated that a woman is not moving ahead
because of her gender. Most cases are dependent on circumstantial
evidence which examines a number of different factors, such as
derogatory statements toward women or minority employees, which are
pervasive in the workplace, and comparison of qualifications between
the non-promoted woman and the successful male candidate"
source:
The Glass Ceiling: Gender & Wage Discrimination?
by Michelle Rosario
http://origin.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/social_science/kfoster/labor/01michelle/hw/Midterm/Q5.htm
"Glass Ceiling Discrimination Potential Class Action
Glass ceiling cases are primarily proven by statistics. If all women
cannot rise above the position of supervisor, then all women are being
discriminated against in promotion and hiring. Therefore, any glass
ceiling case is a potential class action case."
source: Discriminationattorney.com: Glass Ceiling Discrimination in
Workplace
http://www.discriminationattorney.com/glass_ceiling.html
"The landmark decisions on glass ceiling cases coming out of the DOL's
OFCCP have focused primarily on compensation, analyzing salary by
title, salary grade, and function within operating companies.
Several variables may contribute to wage disparities, such as title,
longevity with the company, previous experience, and performance.
Without pre-audit insight into those differences there will be no
opportunity to explain or remedy inconsistencies. The objective is to
ensure that no systemic problem exists in company practices."
source: American Corporate Counsel Association: Glass Ceiling Audits
http://www.acca.com/DiverseCounsel/resources/audits.html
'PROOF OF "GLASS CEILING" DISCRIMINATION
"Glass ceiling" cases are difficult to prove. It is equally difficult
to establish the necessary pattern of discrimination. It is the rare
plaintiff who will be able to prove, with corroboration, that a
company executive has stated that a woman is not moving ahead because
of her sex. Most cases are dependent on circumstantial evidence which
examines a number of different factors, such as derogatory statements
toward women or minority employees , which are pervasive, in the
workplace, and comparison of qualifications between the non-promoted
woman and the successful male candidate. You need to examine your job
situation in light of the laws against sexual discrimination, and see
if facts exist which raise questions in your mind as to whether "you
have gone as far as you can go" only because you are a woman.'
source: Talk-Law.com: The Glass Ceiling
http://www.talk-law.com/glass.shtml
search terms:
"glass ceiling cases", proof, proving, prove
luciano, olsten, "glass ceiling"
I hope this helps. If anything is unclear, please use the "request
clarification" feature to let me know. Thanks. |
,
0 Comments
)