Desire for ‘Ken and Barbie’ look torpedoes trial court win

A recent appeals court victory for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a textbook example of how to put together a case for a person who claims unlawful discrimination. Here, the appeals court reasoned that a trial court improperly decided that a Hispanic employee’s claim of unlawful national origin and sex discrimination must be decided by a jury, not a federal judge.

Employee is fired; all is well; nothing to see here

Magali Villalobos, a United States citizen born in Mexico, worked as an assistant manager for an apartment complex. During her employment, new ownership took over the complex.

Villalobos was promoted to manager by the new owners on January 1, 2012, but she was then fired on March 21, 2012. The reasons? The complex claimed performance—specifically, too high a delinquency rate in timely rent payments, not getting vacant units ready for rental quickly enough, and failure to submit invoices properly.

Oh, and there were big plans to renovate the complex, and Villalobos lacked experience in managing properties undergoing renovations. Nice and tidy, nothing to look at here, let’s just move along!

EEOC says, ‘Not so fast!’

But the EEOC took up her case. They took a scalpel to the rationales, arguing that unlawful discrimination was the motivation, not performance. It’s important to note that to get the case to the jury, the EEOC didn’t need to prove that such was the case, only that there was reasonable doubt as to whether performance was the true reason for Villalobos’ termination. Here is how it did so.