Brenda Patterson (Patterson) (plaintiff), a black employee, worked for McLean Cr
ID: 326778 • Letter: B
Question
Brenda Patterson (Patterson) (plaintiff), a black employee, worked for McLean Credit Union (McLean) (defendant) for a decade before being laid off in 1982. Patterson sued McLean for various violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including a claim that McLean denied Patterson a promotion in favor of a lesser-qualified, white employee. In response, McLean alleged that the white employee was more qualified for the position than Patterson. In its jury instructions, the district court told the jury that in order to succeed on her promotion-denial claim, Patterson had to prove that she was, in fact, more qualified for the open position than the white employee selected. The jury rejected Patterson’s promotion claim. The court of appeals affirmed. Patterson challenged the portion of the district court’s jury instructions related to her promotion claim, ultimately petitioning for United States Supreme Court review.
3. Do any of the actions Patterson alleged McLean engaged in seem appropriate? Why do you think it was done or permitted?
Explanation / Answer
Brenda Patterson Issue Background:
Brenda Patterson, a black employee, worked for McLean Credit Union for a decade before being laid off in 1982. Patterson sued McLean for various violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including a claim that McLean denied Patterson a promotion in favor of a lesser-qualified, white employee. In response, McLean alleged that the white employee was more qualified for the position than Patterson. In its jury instructions, the district court told the jury that in order to succeed on her promotion-denial claim, Patterson had to prove that she was, in fact, more qualified for the open position than the white employee selected. The jury rejected Patterson’s promotion claim. The court of appeals affirmed. Patterson challenged the portion of the district court’s jury instructions related to her promotion claim, ultimately petitioning for United States Supreme Court review.
Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1981: As per 42 U.S.C. § 1981, equal right under the laws. Thus each employee / citizen has equal right under this law.
Discrimination Clause: The employer could not do any discrimination act, for any of the employee on the basis of race, color, religion, origin of country, and sex. So Patterson may be having the feeling and evidences that the employer might have carried out discrimination act with her.
The actions of Patterson alleged McLean engaged in, seem appropriate because of following points as below
I don’t think it was done or permitted because; it was the feeling of Patterson that she was not considered equally may be with white people as per law and she was not given equal right during employment. She feels that she might be discriminated during her employment.