The document analyzes whether an employer violated Title VII by allowing racially discriminatory jokes to be sent over its email system. It finds that the employer did not violate Title VII because it had an established email policy prohibiting non-business use and took corrective action by disciplining the offending employee and holding meetings about appropriate email use.

1. To: Professor
From: Christina Leftridge
Re: Fact Pattern
Date: 01/19/2010
FACT PATTERN ANALYSIS
Question: Did EMPLOYER violate Title VII by allowing employees to use the e-mail system to send racially discriminatory jokes?
Answer: EMPLOYER did not violate Title VII because EMPLOYER had an established e-mail policy prohibit company e-mail use
for non-business purposes. EMPLOYER took corrective action shortly after learning of the jokes by holding company meetings
discussing appropriate use of the e-mail system, and EMPLOYER disciplined the employee who sent the racially discriminatory
jokes.
ISSUES
PRELIMINARY ISSUES:
A determination of whether EMPLOYER is under the regulations of Title VII must be made before Angela can assert
this violation in court. Employers subject to Title VII include public and private employers, unions, joint labor and management
committees making admission, referral, training, other decisions, and employment agencies. Employers must have more than
15 employees to be subject to Title VII regulations. Employers are exempt from Title VII regulations if they operate on or
around Native American reservations, are registered as a communist organization or registered as a religious institution. If
EMPLOYER applies to one of the exempt categories or has less than 15 employees, then Angela will not be able to bring a Title
VII discrimination claim against them. If EMPLOYER is a registered communist or religious institution, then Angela will not be
able to bring a claim for racial discrimination.
Angela’s status as an employee must be determined before Angela’s claim can be brought to court. Title VII applies to
all levels of public and private employees, but does not apply to independent contractors. If Angela is classified under the IRS
test or economic realities test as an independent contractor, she will not be able to bring a Title VII claim against EMPLOYER.
Requirements for a Title VII prima facie case include sufficient facts showing that race discrimination occurred against
Angela. Angela cannot bring the claim on behalf of another party. Angela needs to establish that she belongs to a protected
class under Title VII. Angela also needs to show that EMPLOYER’S disciplinary procedures for violating the e-mail policy favor
others and unfairly discriminates against her. Angela needs to have sufficient facts showing that EMPLOYER’S e-mail policy or
enforcement procedures favor others over her.
LEGAL ISSUES:
EMPLOYER had a written e-mail policy prohibiting the use of company e-mail for non-business purposes. This policy
was violated when Cathy sent the racially discriminatory jokes over the company’s e-mail system.
Diane, the manager of the department, took action against Cathy by issuing a strong verbal warning and placing a
written reprimand in her personnel file shortly after learning that Cathy had sent racially discriminatory jokes over the
company’s e-mail system. Diane also held a staff meeting three days after the second jokes were sent, discussing the company’s
e-mail policy that prohibits the use of company e-mail for non-business purposes. Diane’s actions are evidence of how the
company enforced the e-mail policy.
The Human Resources Manager, Tom, also took action two days later by holding a meeting, where Angela was
allowed to voice her objections to the jokes. Tom also discussed the company’s e-mail policy with employees that prohibit the
use of company e-mail for non-business purposes. Tom’s actions are evidence of the procedures the company uses to enforce
the e-mail policy.

2. LEGAL RULES
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with
respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or
tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an
employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII prohibits employers from taking any action that discriminates against an employee, who qualifies under the
categories race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Angela asserts that EMPLOYER violated this law when it
allowed Cathy to send racially discriminatory jokes over the company’s e-mail system.
Daniels v. WorldCom Corp. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2335 (N.D. Tex. 1998). The Daniels case serves as precedent for this
fact pattern as a case on point. In Daniels, an employee sent racially discriminatory jokes over the e-mail system.
The company had an e-mail policy that prohibiting the use of company e-mail for non-business purposes. Another
employee complained about the jokes, and the managers of the company held meeting with employees to discuss
the company’s e-mail policy. The employee who sent the jokes was reprimanded with a verbal warning and a written
reprimand went into her personnel file. The court ruled for the employer in this case.
ANALYSIS
Angela claims that EMPLOYER violated VII by allowing Cathy to send racially discriminatory jokes over
EMPLOYER’S e-mail system. EMPLOYER had an e-mail policy in place prohibiting the use of company e-mail for
non-business purposes. This prohibition serves to thwart employees from using e-mail in a racially discriminatory
manner. EMPLOYER also took disciplinary steps against Cathy for violating the company’s e-mail policy as well as
holding meeting with employees to reiterate the company’s e-mail policy. EMPLOYER’S disciplinary action against
Cathy and ensuring that other employees know and abide by the e-mail policy, or be subject to disciplinary
actions, are evidence that EMPLOYER does not condone the racially discriminatory jokes. It also evidences that
EMPLOYER took action to prevent racial discrimination with other employees.

3. EMPLOYER’S e-mail policy and actions after the incident are similar to the facts in Daniels. The court in
Daniels ruled that the existing e-mail policy, disciplinary action against the employee who violated the policy, and
the quick employee meetings that occurred after the incident was reasonable and did not violate Title VII.
RESULT
This case will likely be dismissed. EMPLOYER had an appropriate e-mail in place that prohibited
employees from using the company’s e-mail system for non-business purposes. Cathy violated the e-mail policy
and EMPLOYER reprimanded her for her actions.
ALTERNATE ACTION BY EMPLOYEES
Employees need to be more aware that society strongly disapproves of racially discriminatory jokes and
should not send any such jokes over the company’s e-mail system. Employees should vocalize to management the
need for racial awareness and sensitivity training to prevent racially discriminatory motives and decisions at work.
ALTERNATE ACTIONS BY EMPLOYERS
Employers should educate their employees on a regular basis on racial discrimination at the workplace.
This will help to lower the chance that an employee will discriminate against another employee, when using e-mail
or during business conversation. Employers should have written reprimand policies that are followed shortly after
every incident. This will ensure each employee is reprimanded in exactly the same manner. Employers should also
review their e-mail policies on a regular basis to ensure they adequately address discrimination issues. Employers
should communicate to employees that they will not be retaliated against for bringing racial discrimination issues
to the attention of the company.