OR · 42usc2000e-2:employer
An employer's discharge decision lies only against the employer under § 2000e-2(a), whereas a union is liable only under § 2000e-2(c) (such as causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate under (c)(3)).
Exact element source
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [63:123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agencySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [739:807] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization-Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [1122:1191] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| labor-organization | Labor union sued under § 2000e-2(c) (e.g., causing an employer to discriminate under (c)(3)) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| labor-organization/union-sued-for-employers-discharge | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — not | |
| private-employer | Private corporate or institutional employer with 15+ employees | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| private-employer/church-owned-college | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — satisfied | |
| private-employer/private-retailer | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — satisfied | |
| private-employer/private-university | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied | |
| private-employer/private-utility-long-term-employee | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — satisfied | |
| private-employer/small-private-company-owner-supervisor | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 — satisfied | |
| public-employer | Municipal, state, or federal government agency employer | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| public-employer/municipal-fire-department | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — satisfied | |
| public-employer/municipal-police-department | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — rule-announced/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) | public-employer/municipal-police-department | Plaintiffs are eight District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department officers employed in the Canine Unit of the Special Operations Division.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [517:662] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1. |
| /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1) | private-employer/private-retailer | On July 24, 2007, Raymour and Flanigan, a furniture company, hired Glenn, an African-American male, as a Facility Technician in its Frazer, Pennsylvania service center (“Frazer Service Center”).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [685:879] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f. |
| /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a); party: Barber-Scotia College; subject: party=Barber-Scotia College | private-employer/church-owned-college | Defendant Barber-Scotia College (BSC) is an institution of higher learning and is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [1156:1314] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8. |
| /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(c)(3),(m); 2000e(j); 2000e-3(a); party: Alabama Power Co. (APC); subject: party=Alabama Power Co. (APC) | private-employer/private-utility-long-term-employee | APC employed Breech in various positions from January, 1977 until July, 1991 when he was terminated in response to four unexcused absences.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [1070:1209] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf. |
| /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1),(c)(3),(m); 2000e(j); 2000e-3(a); party: IBEW System Council U-19 (Union); subject: party=IBEW System Council U-19 (Union) A union can be reached only under (c)(3) (causing the employer to discriminate); that theory was neither argued nor supported, so the discharge claim against the union fails at the threshold. | labor-organization/union-sued-for-employers-discharge | This action was brought by plaintiff Alan Breech (“Breech”) against his former employer, APC, and the union of which he was a member during his employment with APC, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, System Council U-19 (“Union”).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [570:818] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Breech has presented absolutely no evidence on this point; nor has he made specific arguments in his brief that the Union violated § 2000e-2(c)(3).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [21381:21528] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Since the Union is not Breech’s employer, it cannot be liable under this specific cause of action; such an action may lie only against the employer, in this case APC.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [20836:21002] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf. |
| /f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a); 2000e(k) | private-employer/small-private-company-owner-supervisor | CARS hired Jane Doe as a graphic artist in June 1999.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [1537:1590] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.Fred Kohl, Vice-President and part-owner of the company, was Doe’s supervisor.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [1656:1734] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) | private-employer/private-university | Colorado Seminary owns and operates the University of Denver (“DU”), including DU’s Health and Counseling Center (“HCC”), which provides wellness services such as counseling to DU’s student body.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [571:766] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.In November 2011, DU hired Dr. Hiatt to be a Staff Psychologist and the Training Director at the HCC.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [767:868] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| /us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(k),(l),(h),(j); party: defendant City of New Haven and the officials who opposed certification (respondents); subject: party=defendant City of New Haven and the officials who opposed certification (respondents) | public-employer/municipal-fire-department | When the City of New Haven undertook to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions in its fire department (Department), the promotion and hiring process was governed by the City charter, in addition to federal and state law.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [3526:3752] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Since the Union is not Breech’s employer, it cannot be liable under this specific cause of action; such an action may lie only against the employer, in this case APC.
/f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997
Since the Union is not Breech’s employer, it cannot be liable under this specific cause of action; such an action may lie only against the employer, in this case APC.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [20836:21002] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.An employer's discharge decision lies only against the employer under § 2000e-2(a), whereas a union is liable only under § 2000e-2(c) (such as causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate under (c)(3)).