ILNews

Burmese man loses workplace discrimination appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man born in Burma whose employment at a Mooresville factory was terminated after co-workers complained about his behavior failed to persuade the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate his claim of discrimination based on national origin.

The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer in Cung Hnin v. TOA (USA), LLC, 13-3658. After Hnin was fired from TOA’s automotive metal stamping plant, he sued claiming violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000.

Hnin claimed discrimination on the basis of national origin and also brought a retaliation claim, arguing the company fired him after he voiced concern about the promotion of ethnic Chin workers.

But the 7th Circuit panel affirmed judgment in the employer’s favor granted by U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana. TOA investigated claims and interviewed employees who alleged that Hnin repeatedly insinuated a sexual relationship between two co-workers. Other co-workers said Hnin often got angry, acted aggressively and made them uncomfortable. He also told workers to slow down production so workers could get more overtime, according to the record.

“Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in Hnin’s favor, he has not pointed to any evidence suggesting that (TOA officials) did not honestly believe (their) reasons for terminating Hnin’s employment,” wrote Judge Amy J. St. Eve, sitting by designation from the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. “Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment as to Hnin’s national origin discrimination claim.”

Regarding the retaliation claim, Hnin “has not presented a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would permit a jury to infer that TOA retaliated against him,” St. Eve wrote.




 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT