How Employers Discriminatorily Raise The Bar: Worker Must Be “Twice As Good” As Employees Of Different Race

Having practiced employment law for more than twenty years, our race discrimination lawyers in Marion County, Florida know that disparate treatment is the most common type of racial discrimination in the workplace. As the U.S. Supreme Court in Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) observed, “disparate treatment . . . is the most easily understood type of discrimination.” In the race discrimination context, disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats an employee differently or less favorably from employees of another race.

In race discrimination cases, discrimination is most often proven under the disparate treatment discrimination theory. When an employer treats an employee differently or less favorably from employees of another race, the difference in treatment is circumstantial evidence of discrimination. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 609 (1993), employment discrimination can in some situations be proven “from the mere fact of differences in treatment.”

In this article, our race discrimination lawyers in Marion County, Florida explain how the alleged facts in Brown v. Baldwin Union Free School District, 603 F.Supp.2d 509 (E.D. N.Y. 2009) are illustrative of how employers’ discriminatorily raise the bar through disparate treatment by requiring employees to be “twice as good” as employees of another race.

Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

In that case, a man named Brown brought an employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Baldwin Union Free School District (the “District”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, national origin, sex, or religion. Brown, who is African-American, claims that he was not hired as Assistant Principal of Baldwin Middle School in 2002 and then was fired from another position in 2024 because of his race in violation of Title VII.
In March 2002, Brown applied for the position of Assistant Principal of the Baldwin Middle School. Brown underwent three interviews for the position. The first interview was conducted by the school’s Principal. The second interview was conducted by the school’s Assistant Principal. The final interview was conducted by a committee that included administrators, department heads, parent representatives, and students.

According to Brown, a few days after his third and final interview, the Principal called him and told Brown that he was not selected for the Assistant Principal position. The Principal allegedly told Brown that he was the Principal’s choice for the job, but the school was “going in another direction” because the Principal and Assistant Principal were African-American and African-Hispanic, respectively, and the District was “not ready” for the three top administrative positions at the Middle School to be occupied by African-Americans.

Brown alleges that, after delivering that news, the Principal told Brown that he still wanted Brown on his team, that there was another position available (Dean of Students), and that Brown should submit a writing sample the following day in order to be considered for the position. Brown submitted the writing sample as required. Ultimately, the District hired Brown as Dean of Students at the school and hired a white female for the Assistant Principal position at the school. Around this same time, the District also hired a white female, Farb, to serve as Dean of Students at the school.

Must Be “Twice As Good”

During the litigation, Brown testified about numerous conversations he allegedly had with the Principal concerning the role that race played in certain hiring decisions at the school. For example, Brown alleges that the Principal told him, on “several occasions,” that he and Farb had been hired as two Deans of Students because the Superintendent wanted to have “one African-American Dean of Students and one Caucasian Dean of Students.” Brown further alleges that, during a dinner meeting in February 2004, the Principal made additional comments concerning race and Brown’s employment with the District. Brown claims that the Principal told him that he needed to be “twice as good as Dean Farb and the other white administrators.” Brown also claims that, during the same meeting, the Principal told Brown to “get off CPT time” (understood to mean “Colored People’s Time”), start arriving at work earlier, and “step up his game.”

According to Brown, by the summer of 2004, Brown’s relationships with his fellow administrators, including the Principal, had become extremely strained. Brown claims that, in June 2004, the Principal told him that “the Superintendent wanted [Brown] to resign quietly or else be fired.” At the end of that month, Brown was informed that his employment would be terminated at the end of the school year.

Evidence Of Discriminatory Discharge

The District filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Brown’s race discrimination claims. The trial court denied the District’s motion for dismissal and ruled that Brown had presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that the decision not to hire him for the Assistant Principal position and the subsequent decision to terminate his employment were motivated by his race. In support of its ruling, the trial court pointed to the racially discriminatory remarks allegedly made by the Principal, including Brown a few months prior to his termination that “he, as an African-American school administrator, had to be ‘twice as good’ as the white administrators,” and that the Principal “admonished Brown to ‘step up his game to get of CPT.’ ”

Free Consultation For Discrimination Victims

One of the most significant decisions racial discrimination victims must make is which race discrimination lawyers to consult regarding their employee rights. As part of our commitment to assisting racial discrimination victims, an experienced race discrimination lawyer will speak with you personally and you will receive the individualized attention your case deserves. We offer free confidential case evaluations for employees, and you will not have to pay to speak with our race discrimination attorneys regarding your employee rights. We are available for consultation at your convenience, including scheduling telephone consultations for evenings and weekends.

Marion County Race Discrimination Lawyers

Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our racial discrimination lawyers in Marion County, Florida have litigated race discrimination cases in Florida courts for more than two decades. If you have experienced racial discrimination in the workplace or have questions about your rights as a racial discrimination victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our race discrimination lawyers in Marion County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes race discrimination cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery, and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.