1. What do you think of the employer’s argument that since its policies discriminated against blacks, the white employee should not be able to bring a suit for discrimination? Explain.

2. Do you understand the court’s reasoning that the white employee was being discriminated against by not being able to hire and promote black employees? Explain.

3. What reason can you think of as to why the employer had the policy of not hiring or promoting blacks? Do you think it makes good economic sense? (Consider all facets of economics, including the possibility of litigation over the policies.)

Issue: Whether a white employee has a cause of action for constructive dismissal under Title VII if she felt she was forced to leave her job when the employer would not allow her to hire and promote African-Americans.

Facts: The employer had a policy of discriminating against African-Americans in hiring and promotion. The white plaintiff alleged that the employer thwarted her efforts to hire and promote African-Americans and as a result, her employment became so intolerable that she was forced to resign. The employer alleged that the white employee had no standing to sue under Title VII since its practices were targeted only at African-American.

Decision: The white employee has a cause of action for race discrimination under Title VII. The “fail or refuse to hire” provision of Title VII which the employer concentrates on misperceives the unlawful employment practice here. Plaintiff does not argue that she was the target of the employer’s policies, but rather that the employer’s policy violated her fundamental right to associate with African-Americans and as a consequence, the employer committed a separate violation by engaging in an unlawful employment practice that “otherwise discriminate[d] against an individual,” namely Chandler. The court recognized that the claim was somewhat novel, but believed that since a white person’s right to associate with blacks is protected by section 1981, an employer’s implementation of an employment practice that impinges upon this right is actionable under Title VII. Also, Chandler’s allegations are sufficient to establish a claim under the Title VII provision making it unlawful to discriminate against any employee because the employee opposed any practice unlawful under Title VII. In addition, forcing Chandler to carry out the unlawful practices would cause an adverse employment action to be visited upon her and this would cause her to work in an abusive or hostile environment in violation of Title VII.