Instructions:
Please refer to the case at the end of the chapter 6 on page 319: Vaughn vs. Edel and answer the three Case Questions.
Your assignment should include 1,200 to 1,300 words, not including the cover and reference pages.
APA Writing Style:
Students are required to follow the APA Writing Style for all written assignments. At a minimum, include the following:
• Separate Cover Page
• Separate Reference Page – the sources should be in alphabetical order by the last names of the authors.
• Double spacing
• Times New Roman, 12 Font Size
• Respond to questions by including the questions and responding to the questions in essay format.
• First sentence of each paragraph is indented by five spaces
• Include headings and subheadings
Book: Employment Law for Business (9th Edition). By Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander & Laura P. Hartman (2018).
Reading:
Vaughn v. Edel 918 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1990)
During a retrenchment, a black female was terminated for poor performance. She alleged race discrimination in that her employer intentionally determined not to give her necessary feedback about her performance that would have helped her perform better and perhaps avoid dismissal. The court upheld the employee’s claim.
Emma Vaughn, a black female attorney, became an associate contract analyst in Texaco’s Land Department in August of 1979. Her supervisors were Robert Edel and Alvin Earl Hatton, assistant chief contract analyst. In Vaughn’s early years with Texaco, she received promotions and was the highest ranked contract analyst in the department.
The events leading to this dispute began on April 16, 1985, the day after Vaughn returned from a second maternity leave. On that day, Edel complained to Vaughn about the low volume of her prior work and the excessive number of people who visited her office. Vaughn later spoke with Roger Keller, the head of the Land Department, about Edel’s criticism of her.
In a memorandum concerning this discussion, Keller wrote that he had told Vaughn that he had been told that Vaughn’s productivity “was very low”; that he “had become aware for some time of the excessive visiting by predominantly blacks in her office behind closed doors”; and the “the visiting had a direct bearing on her productivity”. Keller than told Vaughn, as he noted in his memo, that “she was allowing herself to become a black matriarch within Texaco” and “that this role was preventing her from doing her primary work for the company and that it must stop”.
Keller’s remarks offended Vaughn, so she sought the advice of a friend who was an attorney in Texaco’s Legal Department. Keller learned of this meeting and of Vaughn’s belief that he was prejudiced. To avoid charges of race discrimination, Keller told Vaughn’s supervisor, Edel “not to have any confrontations with Ms. Vaughn about her work”. Keller later added that “if Edel was dissatisfied, let it ride”. If it got serious, then go see Keller”.
Between April 1985 and April 1987 when Vaughn was fired, neither Edel nor Hatton expressed criticism of Vaughn’s work to her. During this period all annual written evaluations of Vaughn’s work performance (which incidentally, Vaughn never saw) were “satisfactory”. Vaughn also received a merit salary increase, though it was the minimum, for 1986. Keller testified that for several years he had intentionally overstated on Vaughn’s annual evaluations his satisfaction with her performance because he did not have the time to spend going though procedures that would result from a lower rating and which could lead to termination.
In 1985-1986. Texaco undertook a study to identify activities it could eliminate to save costs. To meet the cost-reduction goal set by the study, the Land Department fired its two “poorest performers”, one of whom was Vaughn, as the “lowest ranked” contract analyst. The other employee fired was a white male.
In passing Title VII, Congress announced that “sex, race, religion, and national origin are not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees”. When direct credible evidence of employer discrimination exists, an employer can counter direct evidence, such as a statement or written document showing discriminatory motive on its face, “only by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have acted as they did without regard to the employee’s race”.
Vaughn presented direct evidence of discrimination. Keller testified that to avoid provoking a discrimination suit he had told Vaughn’s supervisor not to confront her about her work. His “black matriarch” memorandum details the events that led Keller to initiate this policy. Keller also testified to deliberately overstating Vaughn’s evaluations in order not to start the process that might eventually lead to her termination. This direct evidence clearly shows that Keller acted as he did solely because Vaughn is black.
Although Vaughn’s race may not have directly motivated the 1987 decision to fire her, race did play a part in Vaughn’s employment relationship with Texaco from 1985-1987. Texaco’s treatment of Vaughn was not colorblind during that period. In neither criticizing Vaughn when her work was unsatisfactory nor counseling her how to improve, Texaco treated Vaughn differently than it did its other contract analysts because she was black. As a result, Texaco did not afford Vaughn the same opportunity to improve her performance and perhaps her relative ranking, as it did its white employees. One of those employees was placed on an improvement program. Others received informal counseling. The evidence indicates that Vaughn had the ability to improve. As Texaco acknowledges, she was once its highest ranked contract analyst.
Had her dissatisfied supervisors simply counseled Vaughn informally, such counseling would inevitably have indicated to Vaughn that her work was deficient. Had Keller given Vaughn the evaluation that he believed she deserved, Texaco’s regulations would have required him placing her on a ninety-day work improvement program, just as at least one other employee- a white male- had been placed. A Texaco employee who has not improved by the end of that period is fired.
When an employer excludes black employees from its efforts to improve efficiency, it subverts the “broad overriding interest” of Title VII- “efficient and trusty workmanship assured through fair and racially neutral employment and personnel decisions”. Texaco has never stated any reason, other than that Vaughn was black, for treating her as it did. Had Texaco treated Vaughn in a colorblind manner from 1985-1987, Vaughn may have been fired by April 1987 for unsatisfactory work; on the other hand, she might have sufficiently improved her performance as to not be one of the two lowest ranked employees, thereby avoiding termination in April 1987.
Because Texaco’s behavior was race-motivated, Texaco violated Title VII. Texaco limited or classified Vaughn in a way which would either “tend to deprive her of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee” in violation of the law.
Questions
1. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why or why not? (Yes, I agree).
2. How would you have handled this matter if you were the manager?
3. What do you think of Keller’s remarks about Vaughn becoming the “black matriarch” of Texaco, “meeting behind closed doors”, and “excessive meetings with predominately blacks”? What does it signify to you? What attitudes might it reflect that may be inappropriate in the workplace? What concern, if any, might be appropriate?
