Pushy preggers co-worker aggressively trying to get promotion

[rudeguy]

But it's perfectly reasonable for you to talk out of your own ass about it?

Yep.

 

[PenguinPower]

I think in all those cases they would need to prove that there is a persistent pattern of discrimination against a protected class and not simply that person A was promoted over person B despite the outward appearance that person B was more qualified.

You would think wrong. A plaintiff need not show a persistent pattern of discrimination, only that the company had discriminatory intent or motive for taking job-related adverse action. A persistent pattern would certainly help in meeting prong 3 (proof of pretext) should the company present a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions.

While some of them were class action, the below are the summaries for once-off incidents and the cost associated.

EEOC v. Wells Fargo Financial Michigan, Inc., Case No. 2:10-CV-13517 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2012).

In March 2012, a financial services company formerly located in various cities in Michigan agreed to settle for $55,000 an age and race discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC lawsuit alleged that that Wells Fargo Financial failed to promote a highly qualified 47-year-old African-American loan processor on the basis of age and race. The loan processor applied for a promotion but was passed over for five lesser qualified Caucasian women aged between 23 and 30 who were based in various other branch offices, even though the processor had the best combination of relevant, objective scores that measured productivity, was "loan processor of the year" for 2007, the year immediately preceding the promotion decision, worked at the one of the largest and most profitable offices in the relevant district, and was the "go-to person" for the district on loan processing.

EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 5:10-cv-01068-R (W.D. Okla. Nov. 4, 2011).

In November 2011, one of the nation's largest retailers will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle the EEOC's race, sex and age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. According to the EEOC lawsuit, an over 40, African-American female employee who worked in loss prevention at several Sears stores in the Oklahoma City area, from 1982 until her termination in March of 2010, was passed over for promotion to supervisor several times beginning in 2007 in favor of younger, less experienced, White males. Sears allegedly retaliated against Johnson for her initial EEOC discrimination charge in September 2007 by subjecting her to worsening terms and conditions at work.

EEOC v. Mainline Health Care, No.05-cv-4092(CN) (E.D. Pa. settled Aug. 25, 2006).

In August 2006, a Pennsylvania health care company agreed to pay $16,000 to two older workers who allegedly were denied promotions based on their race (Black) and their ages (50 and 53), despite their extensive relevant experience of 13+ years. EEOC alleged that, instead of promoting one older Black employee, the company promoted a 28-year old Caucasian employee with seven months of experience and who did not meet the stated criteria for the position.

Goodridge v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050026 (November15, 2006).

In November 2006, the EEOC affirmed an AJ's findings that a federal employee complainant was not selected for promotion to Team Leader based on race (African American), sex (female) and age (DOB 2/14/54), notwithstanding her qualifications, and that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment by the same management official. The decision awarded complainant a retroactive promotion with back pay, $150,000 in compensatory damages and attorneys fees and costs.