Legal Question in Discrimination Law in Michigan

Possible Gender Discrimination

Assuming that the employer made the statements which you have been told were made, the statements do not constitute gender discrimination, although they may be evidence of a discriminatory intent regarding your termination. The termination would be a discriminatory act if it was done for the reason that you are a woman, or by reason of your marital status, or for some other reason prohibited by the Federal Civil Rights Laws or by the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of Michigan. Proving intent is one of the most difficult aspects of a discrimination case, especially if the employer can point to a legitimate business purpose for the termination. The employer's statement of its intent may be challenged, however, if it can be proven that the employer has made statements which indicate a discriminatory intent. Statements which suggest that the termination was based upon gender or marital status could be evidence of a discriminatory intent. You should consult an attorney as soon as possible regarding this matter. I would be happy to discuss this with you.

Elements to make out prima facie gender discrimination case

You've described a very common form ofgender discrimination. You need to get yourself counsel. He/she will request documents suchas resumes or employment applications, personnel files of the three men involved (chosenover you), personnel files of similarly situated men and women in the company. With luck thedocuments will prove that the men promoted were less qualified than the women who apliedfor the job. There are four elements that your lawyer will have to "make out a prima facie"case. (1) You are in a protected class (e.g., a woman), (2) that an adverse job action wastaken against yu (e.g., you were not put into the job for which you applied) (3) that you werequalified for the job, and (4) that the person who got the job was less qualified. Dependingon the law in your atate, your lawyer will have to prove either (a) that the reason thecompany gives for not giving you the job was a pretext (for example, not merely untrue but acoverup for a reason that was discriminatory) or (b) that there was something more(pretext-plus) than what happened...for instance, x, y, and z. Hope that your state is a"pretext-only" rather than a "pretext-plus" state. Good luck!