Question: Chandler v. Fast Lane, Inc. 868 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. Ark., W. Div. 1994)

A white employee brought suit against her employer for constructive dismissal under Title VII and other statutes, alleging that she was forced to leave her job when the employer would not allow her to hire and promote African Americans. The employer argued that since its policies discriminated only against African Americans, the white employee had no right to sue under Title VII. The court disagreed and permitted the case to be brought.

Eisele, J.

In the complaint filed with the Court, Chandler (who is white) alleges that she was the victim of a discriminatory employment practice at the hands of her employers. Chandler, a former manager of employers' restaurant, claims that her employer thwarted her efforts to employ and promote African-American employees, and that as a result the conditions of her employment became so intolerable that she was forced to resign. The employer argues that because they are alleged to have adopted discriminatory hiring and promotional practices targeted only at African-Americans, a white person has no standing to assert a Title VII claim premised upon these policies.

It is true that only individuals whom employers are claimed to have failed or refused to hire or promote were African-Americans. However, by focusing on the "fail or refuse to hire" provision of 2000e-2(a)(1), employers' argument misperceives the unlawful employment practice alleged by Chandler. Chandler does not claim that she was a target of employers' allegedly anti-AfricanAmerican employment practices. Rather, Chandler argues that employers' insistence that she enforce these practices violated her fundamental right to associate with African-Americans, and as a consequence employer committed a separate violation by engaging in an unlawful employment practice that "otherwise discriminate[d] against an individual," namely Chandler.

Although the Court recognizes that Chandler's Title VII claim is somewhat novel, it is of the opinion that such a claim, if proven, would state a cause of action under Title VII. A white person's right to associate with African-Americans is protected by Sec. 1981. Therefore, the Court concludes that an employer's implementation of an employment practice that impinges upon this right is actionable under Title VII. Additionally, Chandler's allegations are sufficient to establish a Title VII claim under a separate provision of the statute. The relevant provision of Title VII is found in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a), which provides in pertinent part: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . .because [s]he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII].

In order to establish a prima facie case under the "opposition" clause of § 2000e-3(a), an employee must show: (1) that she was engaged in an opposition activity protected under Title VII; (2) that she was a victim of adverse employment action; and (3) that a causal nexus exists between these two events. The Court has no doubt that an employee who exercises her authority to promote and employ African-Americans engages in protected "opposition" to her employer's unlawful employment practice which seeks to deprive African-Americans of such benefits. Thus, Chandler's allegations are clearly sufficient to meet the first requirement of a § 2000e- 3(a) claim. The Court further concludes that employers' insistence that Chandler enforce such an employment practice, if proven, would certainly cause an "adverse employment action" to be visited upon her.

Title VII forbids an employer from requiring its employees "to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment," and included within this prohibition is the right of white employees to a work environment free from discrimination against African-Americans, or any other class of persons. Indeed, subjecting an employee to such a hostile working environment may result in an actionable constructive discharge, a result that is especially likely under facts similar to those presently alleged. Under Title VII, a constructive discharge occurs whenever it is reasonably foreseeable that an employee will resign as a result of her employer's unlawful employment practice, and it is plainly foreseeable that an employee might choose to resign rather than to acquiesce in or enforce her employer's discriminatory and illegal employment practice. The Court is therefore satisfied that employers' efforts to hinder Chandler from hiring and promoting African-Americans, and their insistence that she discriminate against such persons, if proven, would result in an actionable Title VII claim. Indeed, "[u]nder the terms of § 2000e-3(a), requiring an employee to discriminate is itself an unlawful employment practice." Accordingly, it is therefore ordered that employers' motion to dismiss is DENIED.

1. What do you think of the employer's argument that since its policies discriminated against African Americans, the white employee should not be able to bring a suit for discrimination? Explain.

2. Do you understand the court's reasoning that the white employee was being discriminated against by not being able to hire and promote black employees? Explain.

3. What reason can you think of as to why the employer had the policy of not hiring or promoting African Americans? Do you think it makes good economic sense? (Consider all facets of economics, including the possibility of litigation over the policies).