As a result of the post-9/11, anti-immigrant atmosphere that has become widespread in the U.S., the EEOC has witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of employment discrimination charges alleging national origin discrimination. As the EEOC explains national origin discrimination, “National origin discrimination means treating someone less favorably because he or she is from a particular place, because of his or her ethnicity or accent, or because it is believed that he or she has a particular ethnic background. National origin discrimination also means treating someone less favorably at work because of marriage or other association with someone of a particular nationality.”
If you have questions about national origin discrimination or believe that you may have suffered discrimination based on your ethnic background, its important to consult with a dedicated Atlanta national origin discrimination attorney right away.
As with many different forms of employment discrimination – “reverse” national origin discrimination is prohibited as well. A recent case looked at the claims of a white female accountant’s – Leanne Kidd’s – failure to promote case against a Korean-owned automobile parts manufacturer.
Kidd asserted that the HR manager at the company had stated that the company refused to consider American candidates for the assistant manager position that Kidd believed she should have received. Instead the company hired a Korean male accountant from outside the company. However – the trial court failed to weigh the impact of this statement in making its determination.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Georgia, Florida and Alabama, decided that the impact of this statement was so significant in the determination of whether the woman suffered national origin discrimination that the trial court must take a closer look. Specifically, the appeals court found that the trial court must determine if this question was inadmissible hearsay (and not allowed in as evidence) or whether the comment could be used as evidence against the company.
If the question was admitted it would bolster the woman’s claim that the company’s excuse for hiring the man – that he had broad based auditing experience – was really “pre-text,” and that the real reason was illegal discrimination.
However, because the lower court didn’t make a decision about the meaning of the HR managers’ purported remark or whether his role in the hiring process meant the comment was admissible under either of two exceptions to the general rule barring the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the case need to be sent back to the district court to rule on those issues.
For more information about national origin discrimination or if your have any questions about any other type of employment discrimination, please contact the top Georgia employment discrimination lawyers at Buckley Bala Wilson Mew LLP for an immediate case evaluation.