Reverse Discrimination Case Summary

460 Words2 Pages
The court determined that the plaintiff did not show enough direct or circumstantial evidence to survive a motion of summary judgment on her reverse discrimination claims, which in turn are based on the analysis used in Title VII cases. The court finds that the plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination under the Elliot- Larson Act must fail as well. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence that showed the court any act of illegal discrimination. The plaintiff used the universities affirmative action plan in her favor. The university agreed that their action plan does state the support of minorities, it had no barring on the plaintiffs outcome of the position she applied for. The defendants were granted their motion for summary judgment, and…show more content…
Employers are sued for race discrimination, and are taken to court on a regular basis. This case is one example of that, but there are preventative measures that could be taken to prevent events like this from occurring as regular as they do. Some of the preventative measures that could have been applied to this case may…show more content…
Dean Thompson could have sat in on the interviews of all applicants.
3. The University could consider rewording their Affirmative Action Plan.
4. After the final three applicants declined the offers, the committee could have used the same guidelines and qualifications for the next pool of applicants.
5. The University could have mailed a letter to the other applicants saying that the final three all declined the position, and if they wanted to reapply they could choose to do so.
6. The University in the job posting could have stated that they were looking for applicants with business, and intramural experience.
7. The hiring committee could have stated they were looking for applicants with that experience in person, during the interview process.
All of these preventative measures could be a successful way to make sure events like this do not happen in the future to SVSU, and other universities in the country. It would limit the amount of mild cases like this one where the plaintiff does not have a strong argument, and only brought the alleged charges against the university because she was denied the position of Coordinator of Campus Recreation. Cases like this happen all the time, even to our very own recreation center on Ball States Campus. The staff there is very careful with daily operations and tries to limit the amount of liability that they face. Liability can never be removed, but it can be

More about Reverse Discrimination Case Summary

Open Document