preview

Gallina V. Mintz Levin Case Summary

Satisfactory Essays
In the case of Gallina v. Mintz Levin, Gallina male co-workers were made discriminatory comments after finding out that she had a young child (Walsh, 2013). Gallina spoke with others in the firm and partners in another office firm (Walsh, 2013). The partners that shared the offices with Gallina were upset to hear that she had seeked others thoughts and opinions on the matter at hand (Walsh, 2013). Gallina was eventually terminated based terminated based upon the evaluations that were negative from the partners in her office, even though the other partner outside firm had given her great evaluations (Walsh, 2013). Gallina falls under a protected class through the Title VII, Civil Rights Act. In this particular case I would have to rule in the favor of the plaintiff.…show more content…
In Gallina case, they are discriminating against her gender and that she was not a male, and that she had a young child. After hearing about Gallina getting other opinions from another partner, it is believed that the partners, whom she shared an office with seeked retaliation. Due to her partners hearing about the conversations and the comments that they made about Ms. Gallina causing a problem for them and embarrassing them, it is evident that when the annual evaluations came around that her office partners seeked retaliation against her (Walsh, 2013). The retaliation is what lost Ms. Gallina her job. Title VII protects those who are retaliatory discriminated against those who complain about possibly Title VII violation (Levinson,
Get Access