That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”
Yesterday, I read this opinion about a white man who claimed that he lost out on a middle school boys basketball coaching job because the school didn’t like the fact that he was married to an Asian ethnic Chinese woman and they have seven mixed race children.
The plaintiff claimed that the school violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The school filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the man could not state a claim under Title VII. The school prevailed because, well, I’ll let the court tell you:
The plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against, not because of his own race, but because of the race or his wife and children. He is basing his discrimination claims on his family status. Viewing the allegations in the light most-favorable to the plaintiff, it is possible that he was treated differently from white males who did not have mixed race families. However, discrimination based on family status alone is not actionable under Title VII. Simply stated, Mr. Blasi is not a member of a protected class for Title VII purposes. Because he is not a member of a protected class, he cannot establish a prima facie case of direct discrimination under Title VII. His claims under this legal theory have no merit.
Therefore, the answer to today’s QATQQ is fact.
* * *
It’s also a fact that this blog — the one you read religiously for the compliance content, humor
and hidden satanic messages is hella-awesome! So, please vote for it today in the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 Amici contest. You can cast your vote for The Employer Handbook here, by clicking the banner to the right, or tweeting your support.