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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.