Employment discrimination cases often focus on a comparison of the treatment of the plaintiff and another similarly-situated employee. Very often trial court judges over-focus on an erroneous insistence that any similarly-situated employee have worked for the same supervisor; the string of reversals over the course of nearly two decades now illustrates the Sixth Circuit's ongoing efforts to combat this apparently widespread practice among federal district judges as discussed in this recent post: Once Again, The Sixth Circuit Rules That A Similarly-Situated Comparator Need Not Have Worked For The Same Supervisor.
The Sixth Circuit reversed a summary judgment granted by a district court that erroneously insisted that any similarly-situated comparator must have worked for the same supervisor in Louzon v. Ford Motor Company, No 11-2356. The plaintiff, Moien Louzon, worked as a product engineer for Ford. Whether he worked for the same immediate supervisor as any similarly-situated comparator only served to evade the question of whether he had been subjected to unlawful discrimination as the Sixth Circuit explained:
Given the facts of this case, whether a comparator was working for the same supervisor should not be given significant weight. ... there are approximately 5000 product engineers in Product Development. "The general management structure in each organization is the product engineers report to supervisors who, in turn, report to managers. There are more than 300 managers in Product Development, all managing different departments within the separate business organizations. In other words, the employee-to-manager ratio among engineers in Product Development is approximately 16:1, and the employee-to-supervisor ratio much lower. If we were to accept Ford's suggestion that the same supervisor is required in this case, the pool of potential comparator force for Louzon would amount to no more than a few individuals. Such a requirement would render any plaintiff's burden virtually impossible, even at the prima facie stage.
The repeated insistence by some courts ultimately fails the logic test. Employment discrimination suits, as the federal courts have long ruled, must be brought against the employer not the individual supervisor. If the ultimate liability and responsibility for employment discrimination is against the company, it makes no sense whatsoever to focus solely upon the actions of a solitary supervisor. But as the continuing labors of the Sixth Circuit demonstrate this point has been slow in gaining traction among trial court judges.
Robert L. Abell
www. RobertAbellLaw.com
