Circumstantial Evidence May Form the Basis of a Viable Employment Discrimination Claim
Our courts have consistently held that discrimination in the workplace is rarely done openly. In fact, it is most often done secretly, behind closed doors. Rarely, therefore, will there ever be direct evidence as may be required, for example, in a criminal case. In a criminal case we understand the burden of proof may have to be established “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” However, with all types of employment discrimination, whether it is because of age, a disability, gender, race, sexual orientation, a pregnancy, or any other protected reason, the burden of proof is not required to be satisfied “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” It may be established by circumstantial evidence.
In Ash v. Tyson Foods, 546 U.S. 454 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the context of discriminatory remarks should be considered. The Court stated that “the speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage.”
