PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Taylor v. Virginia University
December 27,1999 A petition for writ of certiorari was filed
with the United Supreme Court in the sex discrimination case of Taylor v. Virginia Union
University. Two female police officers formerly employed by Virginia Union University
have asked the Supreme Court to reverse the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit and the district court in Richmond after they were denied the right to a fair
trial.
Although the former police chief for Virginia Union University had confessed
that he had no intention of ever sending females to the Police Academy for
training, the Fourth Circuit held that since the remark was made in reference to
only one of the officers, it was not direct evidence of an improper motive in the decision
of the police chief not to send the other officer to the Academy. The Fourth Circuit
also held that simply because the police chief had played a role in hiring the two female
officers that he was entitled to a strong inference that he would not discriminate against
them because they were women. Finally the Fourth Circuit refused to correct the
abuse of discretion by the trial judge in keeping out what the University admitted was
very prejudicial evidence in the sex discrimination trial -- that the former chief of
police treated women as sexual objects -- commenting that he bet an employee had
"good pussy," or that he admitted to looking down another employee's
blouse.
The law firm of Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, P.C., has
filed the petition asking the United States Supreme Court to remove contrived restrictions
placed by the Fourth Circuit on the Civil Rights Act of 1991and to direct lower courts to
conduct a more thorough analysis rather than retreating to sweeping generalizations often
applied in discrimination cases. Thomas H. Roberts is asking the Court to curtail
the application of the "same actor inference" and the "stray comment
rule".
Thomas H. Roberts, Esq., counsel for the two female officers, expressed
disappointment that Virginia Union University, an institution that should be particularly
mindful of the scourge of discrimination, has not denounced sexual discrimination.
Instead of denouncing the evil and making amends the Virginia University has attempted to
justify their behavior claiming that its just "men-talk." Judge
Motz, writing a dissenting opinion to the decision of the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals decision to permit the scourge to continue, on this note
stated
- Although at oral argument (but not in its appellate brief) the university fleetingly
asserted harmlessness, its principal contention was that exclusion of this statement was
proper because the statement was purportedly irrelevant. The remark was irrelevant, VUU
maintained, because Chief Wells made it "to another male employee without a female
being in the presence." The university explained
that"this is [a] kind of man talk situation. When men get together and talk they say
certain things. Certainly the plaintiff had no way of knowing this comment
was ever made."
- If a supervisor's own words reflect the illegal bias he is accused of harboring, those
words generally constitute strong, direct evidence of that animus, admissible in an
employment discrimination action brought against him. Such evidence does not become
irrelevant just because the supervisor did not make the offensive remarks in front of
those he is accused of victimizing, or because the plaintiff did not know of the remarks.
. . .
- I agree [with petitioners] and am deeply disappointed that
a respected institution of higher learning would suggest otherwise.
The facts and circumstances of each case are unique and
therefore the fact that a law firm has obtained significant verdicts and results
in other cases in no way guarantees that other cases will have similar results.
|