Employment Law: Race, Sex, and Harassment Case Studies

Racial Discrimination: The Vaughn Case

The court's decision in the Vaughn case was correct. Even if Vaughn's performance was genuinely unsatisfactory, she was not given the same opportunity that a white attorney would have had to rectify her shortcomings, since her supervisors were explicitly instructed to withhold criticism from her performance reviews. This was not done for Vaughn's benefit but out of fear of litigation against the firm. In addition, the "black matriarch" comment suggests that a hostile environment toward African-Americans may have existed at the firm, which could have colored perceptions of Vaughn's performance more broadly (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2007, p. 237).

The racially coded remark directed at Vaughn was clearly inappropriate. Its existence, combined with the deliberate suppression of critical feedback in her performance reviews, points to systemic racial bias rather than a legitimate performance management process. A court reviewing these facts would reasonably conclude that race, not merit, was the operative factor in the firm's treatment of Vaughn.

Performance Management and Documentation

Rather than withholding information about perceived performance deficiencies, a good manager would have given Vaughn specific, targeted criticism so she could improve. Negative aspects of her performance should have been documented according to concrete, objective metrics. If such metrics were unavailable and any negative assessment rested solely on subjective perceptions, that would itself suggest that discrimination rather than actual performance was at issue.

In other words, a clear and incontrovertible record should have been established showing that Vaughn's performance was deficient so she could not credibly dispute it. The absence of such documentation, combined with the deliberate instruction to supervisors to stay silent, undermined any legitimate business justification the firm might otherwise have offered for its actions.

The circumstances surrounding the meeting between the African-American supervisor and black employees also deserve attention. If a white supervisor had been observed meeting with white employees in her office, it would never have been remarked upon as unusual. The fact that it was treated as noteworthy indicates that the company viewed its black employees as inherently different — as "other" — compared to its white employees. This reflects serious, underlying tensions regarding discrimination and resentment of African-Americans within the organization.

Sex Discrimination: The Phillips Case

The employment policy challenged in the Phillips case was clearly rooted in sexist assumptions. It presumed that women are inevitably the primary caretakers of their families and that, when forced to choose between work and family, women can and must prioritize family. It further assumed that women are not primary breadwinners — that their husbands will be working while they remain at home with children, work part-time, or hold less demanding positions. Finally, the policy rested on the premise that work and family life cannot be balanced and that one parent must always serve as the primary caretaker.

A more equitable approach would ensure an effective work-life balance for all employees. Possible measures include paid parental leave, telecommuting options, flexible hours, and evaluating employees based on work performance rather than hours logged in the office. Where such flexibility is not feasible — as in high-demand fields like corporate law — the rigorous expectations of the position should be communicated clearly during the job interview, and performance should be assessed against those expectations regardless of gender or parental status. An employee with children may still be a highly committed worker, while some employees without children may be quite disengaged. The discriminatory policy, as written, is not even effective at enhancing work quality or employee retention.

With respect to legality, an employer could conceivably decline to hire an applicant if that person's family commitments made it genuinely impossible to fulfill the position's requirements. However, issuing a blanket statement refusing to employ women with children is a clear violation of civil rights law. An employer may set demanding standards that incidentally make it more difficult for individuals with significant family responsibilities to hold a position, but those standards must derive from the position's inherent requirements — not from the employee's gender.

Reference

Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2007). Employment law for business (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.