THE INDIANA LAWYER
Indiana Trial
Reports
Type
of Action: Race
discrimination
Name
of Case: Manickam v. United
States Postal Service
Type
of Injuries: Back pay and
emotional distress.
Date
of Payment: June 20, 2000
Court/Case
#: Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, EEOC No. 240-97-507OX
Name of Judge:
Tammy H. Whitaker,
Administrative Judge
Payment Amount:
Reinstatement, expungement of
the termination action, education and training of supervisors in the
prevention of race discrimination, $64,978 for back pay, $12,000 for
emotional distress, and $24,845.24 for plaintiff s attorney fees and
costs.
Attorney for
Plaintiff: Richard L. Darst,
Attorney at Law, Indianapolis.
Attorneys for
Defendant: Available upon
request.
Case Information:
Plaintiff, an Asian-American,
was assigned to United States Post Office at Plainfield, Indiana. An
acting supervisor recommended her termination for failing to follow the
instructions of the supervisor to do the box mail, but the supervisor did
not verify one way or the other whether she did the box mail. The
supervisor also criticized the plaintiff for using the telephone to call
her husband to tell him that she had to work late, but other employees
were allowed to use the telephone to tell their families that they had to
work late. When the supervisor was confronted with the facts on
cross-examination, she testified that plaintiff was terminated for the
vague reason of failure to meet the requirements of the position. The
shifting nature of the employer's articulated reason for terminating the
Complainant's employment was evidence of the pretext of the reasons. The
supervisor testified that plaintiff had difficulty getting along with
coworkers, but numerous co-workers testified that plaintiff interacted
well with her coworkers. Plaintiff was given no opportunity to respond
to the termination charge, but a white co-worker was given the opportunity
to respond to his termination charge. The request for termination was not
made by plaintiff s immediate supervisor. The terminating supervisor
falsely testified that plaintiff s immediate supervisor was on vacation at
the time.
Top
