No raise can mean race discrimination
Published 03/11/05

Getting not enough of a salary raise could be grounds for an employment discrimination case.

While most employment discrimination cases arise out such adverse employment actions as a firing, failure to promote, or a hostile work environment, a February 18, 2005 decision from the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that an employee who received a raise as a result of our annual employment evaluation, but not as large a raise as she would have received if her evaluation has been more favorable, could move forward with a race employment discrimination case.

In this case, Thalia Gillis, an African American woman, sued the Georgia Department of Corrections and her former supervisors, Alvina Chance and Nan Duffey, on race discrimination stating that it was because racism that she received a salary increase of only 3%, based upon a "met expectations" evaluation wherein she should have received a 5% raise based upon a "exceeded expectations" evaluation. The salary difference was $912.36 per year.

The Court found that under the federal law Title VII, an insufficient salary raise can be the base of an employment discrimination claim. It further found that the $912.36 differential in the salary raise was significant not only for its present value but for future benefit in that any future raises would be based on Gillis' increased salary; thus an additional $912.36 in compensation one year would yield even larger raises in the years to come.

In this particular case, the evidence the Court considered in denying the employer's request that the case be dismissed without going to trial was that racial slurs were commonplace in the workplace and that Nan Duffey while considering where to have Gillis work in their Dublin, Georgia office stated in reference to Gillis: "ain't [it] like a (expletive) to complain."

This remark was overheard by at least two employees, one of whom told Gillis about it. In response to a separate complaint, the Department of Corrections conducted an internal investigation of the supervisors demoting them out of the chain of command and proposing further disciplinary action. Thereafter, both supervisors retired.

While the federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit does not make the decisions as to federal employment discrimination appeals in New Hampshire , the case is worth employers considering. Any adverse employment action as to compensation as a result of discrimination based on protected employment classes, including race, religion and gender, may result in the employer being faced with a lawsuit in federal or state court under either federal or state employment discrimination laws with the possibility of receiving a verdict against the employer for not only lost salary, but also damages for emotional distress, punitive damages and attorney's fees.

Therefore, employers would be prudent to not believe that intentional discrimination in compensation can be gotten away with in the workplace if the amount of compensation difference is small. The risk to the employer is much more than the difference in salary as a result of that intentional discrimination.

J. Daniel Marr is a director and shareholder at Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes counseling businesses and business persons on a variety of legal issues, including employment, and advocating on their behalf. You can reach Attorney Marr by e-mail at: dmarr@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.