• March 10, 2011

When one imagines inappropriate conduct among sex shop employees and their supervisor, racism might not be the conduct that comes to mind.  But just because one might think sex shops might be fertile breeding grounds for other kinds of lawsuit-triggering conduct does not mean that other unlawful and discriminatory conduct does go on there, of course.

Sr. U.S. District Court Judge David S. Doty has found that defendant Fantasy Gift does not get summary judgment on discrimination claims and retaliation claims, based on a supervisor’s racist comments and conduct (which he sadly seeks to explain with a tale of victimization and abuse in his childhood).  Minnesota Litigator notes that the Fantasy Gifts decision fits nicely with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Staub decision, issued just two days earlier, and, in particular, its holding that a “cat’s paw case” can state a claim for discrimination (that is, a case in which a supervisor not charged with making the ultimate employment decision is alleged to have had the discriminatory animus which indirectly resulted in the adverse employment decision).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *