Nucor Corporation Case Study Answers

My own experience with such work environment has been very similar to theirs." Docket entry #148, Ex. Warren states that he removed the chicken after Rogers complained that it was satanic. However, for reasons previously stated, the Court finds that Rogers has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination based on a failure to promote.

I have experienced and knew about the same racially hostile incidents and environment they describe. More important, alleged instances of racial harassment that Bennett learned "through the grape vine" during the time that he allegedly experienced a hostile work environment are admissible and relevant to whether he reasonably perceived a hostile work environment. Nucor presents Durrell Warren's deposition testimony regarding Rogers' claim that Warren hung a rubber chicken with a noose in his work area. He states that before he hung the chicken, he explained to Rogers' work crew that he was using the chicken as an incentive, and he planned to give the "chicken award" to the employee who "goofed up" that day. Nucor presents no specific evidence showing that a decisionmaker rejected Rogers' bids for promotion based on his poor disciplinary record and work history, and the Court declines to indulge in speculation.

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that Nucor must prove, see Miles v.

Bellfontaine Habilitation Center, 481 F.3d 1106, 1107 (8 Cir.

• He saw confederate flag decals displayed on bathroom walls and on lockers and helmets, and he saw a large confederate flag hanging from a crane in the shipping department. Rogers states that from 2000 to 2003, he applied for several jobs in various production departments, and Nucor rejected his bids because of his race. In his second declaration, Rogers repeatedly states that his "application and experience . Additionally, Rogers recites qualifications that appeared on job postings, and he states that they are the same or similar to the qualifications required to perform the inspector position he held in the roll mill department. However, Rogers does not provide a copy of Nucor's job postings, nor does he state that the qualifications listed in his declaration include all qualifications that appeared on actual postings for the positions he sought. Rogers alleges that Nucor retaliated against him for filing a discrimination charge against Nucor in 2003.

This in turn made things even worse at work and adversely [affected] my performance and willingness to continue seeking promotions and training in an environment that made such efforts seem futile. • He saw the words "lazy nigger" written on bathroom walls. Nash Finch Co., 123 F.3d 1046, 1063 (8 Sylvester Rogers began working at the Blytheville plant in 1999 as an inspection bed inspector in the finishing area of the roll mill department. Rogers maintains that his own testimony shows in a "detailed and non-conclusory way" that he was qualified for each position he sought. made it clear" that he satisfied the qualifications listed on job postings for positions that he sought and that he would not have applied unless he had satisfied the posted job qualifications. 42, ¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 24, 27, 29, 31, 35, 37, 40. Accordingly, Nucor has failed to establish its right to summary judgment on this claim, and it remains. Metropolitan Council, 339 F.3d 622, 631 ("We have repeatedly held that in the Eighth Circuit, a district court commits reversible error when it grants summary judgment on an issue not raised or discussed by the parties.").

Nucor asserts that even if plaintiffs have come forward with sufficient evidence of an actionable hostile work environment, it is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to the affirmative defense set forth in Faragher v. They sold it and everything else." Docket entry #80, Ex. According to Nucor, the sale of confederate flag items in the company store was "a one-time incident that was immediately corrected." However, Washington testifies that Nucor submits the deposition of Bernice Gray, who has worked as a warehouse clerk at the Blytheville plant since 1995. Ozzie Green worked at the Blytheville plant from September 1992 until March 2004. In his second declaration, Green states that he left Nucor in March 2004 when "it became obvious" that his race and participation in EEOC proceedings left him with no chance of promotion. Title VII requires claimants to timely file a discrimination charge with the EEOC before bringing suit in federal court, see Cottrill v. 2006), and it is undisputed that neither Green nor Mc Bride filed a discrimination charge.

Additionally, each plaintiff claims that Nucor subjected him to a racially hostile work environment and an assortment of adverse employment actions based on race, and separate plaintiffs Rogers, Washington, and Lee claim that Nucor retaliated against them for opposing racial discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under a disparate impact theory, a plaintiff must show: "(1) an identifiable, facially-neutral personnel policy or practice; (2) a disparate effect on members of a protected class; and (3) a causal connection between the two." Id. 1, ¶¶ 12-15; the shipping department has a two-tiered interview structure between the department manager and supervisors; and the melt shop has several positions that require specific training and examinations. In sum, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to come forward with evidence to sustain disparate impact claims. • A co-worker, Todd Ellis, referred to Martin Luther King as "Martin Luther Coon." • He has observed white employees display the confederate flag on hard hats and other equipment. Nucor has presented evidence that it rejected Washington for the lubricator position for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. The Court finds Washington's conclusory testimony insufficient to show that he possessed the minimum qualifications for the positions he sought. because it was harder than my regular job, and he would take over my job. It is well known that I objected to white co-workers, like Despain and Stacy, presuming authority over me that they didn't have over white employees. Nucor asserts that it discharged Washington based on workplace violence and destruction of company property. He brings disparate treatment claims for failure to promote, failure to train, and involuntary transfer. Plaintiffs filed this suit on December 8, 2003, and filed an amended complaint on March 22, 2004, adding plaintiffs Lee, Green, and Mc Bride.

Each plaintiff claims that Nucor denied him promotions based on race, and each seeks damages for failure to promote under disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of discrimination. Normally, a plaintiff must show that each particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate impact, "except that if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of [the employer's] decision making process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decision making process may be analyzed as one employment practice." 42 U. The manager of the maintenance department has developed departmental procedures for applicant testing and interviews, see docket entry #78, Ex. In separate declarations, each plaintiff states that the roll mill department is segregated by race in that almost all black employees work in the roll shop and finishing areas, and almost all white employees work in the rolling mill or mechanic crew areas. Plaintiffs' allegations that Nucor denied them opportunities for career advancement by segregating them from white employees and by subjecting them to disparate treatment in the areas of training and discipline are, definitively, allegations of disparate treatment, which cannot be forced into a disparate impact model. Additionally, with regard to claims of coworker harassment, a plaintiff must show that his employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate remedial action. • He heard, nearly on a daily basis, racially offensive comments and jokes over the plant radio, followed by monkey or gorilla noises. Accordingly, no issues for trial exist with respect to Bennett's unpleaded allegations regarding retaliation. In response to Nucor's motion for summary judgment, each plaintiff submitted a declaration stating that in early to mid 2002, he "began to participate in meetings and other proceedings with other employees opposing racial discrimination at Nucor's Blytheville . Accordingly, Washington has established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to Nucor's failure to promote him to the lubricator position posted in July 2002. Ramsdell further testifies that Smith showed a great deal of interest in the lubricator position and, unlike Washington, made an effort to become familiar with the job through cross-training. He states, "I exhibited and satisfied the same [qualifications] in my own existing job that were posted for the jobs that I applied for, and I wouldn't have applied if I had not met the qualifications." Id., ¶ 14. The whole incident seemed orchestrated to bait and entrap me. Accordingly, no issues for trial exist on Washington's retaliatory termination claim. Clifton Lee began working for Nucor in 1991 as a roll guide builder. Once an employee receives a right-to-sue letter, he has 90 days in which to file suit, and the failure to do so bars a claim based upon acts asserted in the underlying discrimination charge. Nucor provides a copy of a right-to-sue letter issued to Lee, dated July 1, 2003.

Bradley failed to identify a specific employment practice that has a disparate effect on black employees. "For harassment to affect a condition of employment the conduct must be severe `as it would be viewed objectively by a reasonable person and as it was actually viewed subjectively by the victim.'" Elmahdi v. • His coworker, Allan Thomas, told him over the plant radio that he "could get a hanging." • He saw a noose hanging from a beam in the finishing department. The Court finds that Bennett has failed to show that submitting a bid for promotion would have been a vain and futile act. Bennett argues that he is exempt from applying for supervisory positions because prior to 2005, Nucor did not post open supervisory positions. It is undisputed that Bennett was classified as a roll guide builder before and after his transfer, and Nucor has come forward with evidence that his earnings actually increased after his transfer. The Court finds that Bennett has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of whether his transfer occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Dugan stated: "We really were concerned about getting some of our [NYS1] employees over to NYS2, and getting them some experience in NYS2." Id. Nucor, CV933 JLH, in which he alleges that Nucor retaliated against him by demoting him for his participation in this case. In this case, however, Rogers claims that Nucor retaliated against him by subjecting him to intense scrutiny and harassment for filing a discrimination charge in 2003. Rogers is not precluded from pursuing these distinct claims in separate proceedings. In addition to the lubricator position opening in July 2002, Washington testifies that he submitted bids and was rejected for promotion to the following non-supervisory jobs: mill operator, posted May 29, 2001; leadman, posted February 3, 2003; rotary straightener, posted March 18, 2003; roll turner, posted September 16, 2003; and leadman, posted September 12, 2003.

Bradley compared the racial composition of the Blytheville plant's workforce with the racial composition of "employment selections" to determine whether Nucor's overall selection process had an adverse impact on black applicants, or was otherwise related to race, during the period from December 1, 1999 through October 2005. Nucor asserts, and the Court agrees, that Bradley's statistical analysis fails to create a genuine issue for trial with respect to plaintiffs' disparate impact claims. Nucor asserts that no plaintiff has established the fourth element of a prima facie case — that he endured harassment so severe or pervasive as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of his employment. Plaintiffs' initial declarations include similar testimony that Nucor sold racially offensive merchandise in the company store including "do-rags" and bandanas that featured the confederate flag together with the Nucor company logo. • His coworker, James May, told him that he "needed a noose around his neck." • His supervisor, Durrell Warren, hung a rubber chicken with a noose five feet from his work area. For example, a black employee testified that when he told he manager of his interest in a line driving position, the manager replied that there would be problems on the road with Caucasian people and that the company was not "ready for this right now." Id., at 338 n. A Spanish-surnamed employee testified that when he applied for a line-driver job, he was told: "You're a Chicano, and as far as we know, there isn't a Chicano driver in the system." Id. However, Bennett testifies that he had fewer "bonus hours" at NYS1, and the work he performed there was more strenuous than his work at NYS2. However, it is undisputed that Sanders requested and was granted a transfer back to NYS2, and Bennett claims that he requested and was denied a similar transfer. Nucor presents records from Rogers' personnel file, documenting nine instances in which Rogers incurred disciplinary action for conduct including failing to inspect materials, insubordination, leaving work without permission, and threatening other employees. On June 28, 2005, Rogers initiated a separate lawsuit, Rogers v. The Court finds that Washington has failed to raise a genuine issue for trial as to whether Ramsdell's stated reasons for rejecting his bid are pretext for racial discrimination.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “Nucor Corporation Case Study Answers”

  1. It’s a weighty task, to say the least, requiring them to trawl through research paper after research paper in the quest to ensure a balanced viewpoint supported by well designed and implemented studies.