Is a company liable for a customer's discrimination?
Is a company responsible for discriminatory actions of its customers?
1 answer | asked Mar 15, 2001 8:29 PM [EST] | applies to Ohio
Answers (1)
Customer preference is no defense for unlawful dis
Your question depends in part on the reason for the discrimination. Under the most general employment-at-will doctrine, employers are allowed to discriminate for any reason that is not unlawful.
So, you first have to divine what the employer's possible motives are, and then you have to point to a law that prohibits that sort of discrimination.
Title VII, the most famous anti-discrimination law, prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, religion, national origin and sex. Since it was one of the first anti-discrimination laws, cases which interpret it are often used to interpret other laws.
Under Title VII Law, it is well established that the preferences of fellow employees or customers does not justify discrimination. Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194, 1199 (7th Cir. 1971) (airline's no- marriage rule for stewardesses was not justified by passenger preference); Vigars v. Valley Christian Center of Dublin, 805 F.Supp. 802, 808 (N.D.Cal. 1992) (fellow employees' and customers' preferences do not constitute bona fide occupational qualification, keynote 13). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on sex discrimination also reject "preferences of co- workers, the employer, clients or customers." 29 CFR 1604.2(a)(1)(iii).
So, if you can point to an unlawful basis for the discrimination, then customer or employee preferences will not justify breaking the law.
Richard Renner
Dover, Ohio
posted by Richard Renner | Feb 20, 2001 6:27 PM [EST]
Your question depends in part on the reason for the discrimination. Under the most general employment-at-will doctrine, employers are allowed to discriminate for any reason that is not unlawful.
So, you first have to divine what the employer's possible motives are, and then you have to point to a law that prohibits that sort of discrimination.
Title VII, the most famous anti-discrimination law, prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, religion, national origin and sex. Since it was one of the first anti-discrimination laws, cases which interpret it are often used to interpret other laws.
Under Title VII Law, it is well established that the preferences of fellow employees or customers does not justify discrimination. Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194, 1199 (7th Cir. 1971) (airline's no- marriage rule for stewardesses was not justified by passenger preference); Vigars v. Valley Christian Center of Dublin, 805 F.Supp. 802, 808 (N.D.Cal. 1992) (fellow employees' and customers' preferences do not constitute bona fide occupational qualification, keynote 13). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on sex discrimination also reject "preferences of co- workers, the employer, clients or customers." 29 CFR 1604.2(a)(1)(iii).
So, if you can point to an unlawful basis for the discrimination, then customer or employee preferences will not justify breaking the law.
Richard Renner
Dover, Ohio
posted by Richard Renner | Feb 20, 2001 6:27 PM [EST]
Answer This Question