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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT