Case Summary $12\mathrm{.}1$ Dumas v$.$ Union Pacific Railroad Co$.$

MISCONDUCT

Dumas was an African American employee of UPRC, which employed him as a regional manager. UPC, a rail freight company, was named in a discrimination claim by a co$-$worker of Dumas. During the EEOC investigation, Dumas supported his co$-$worker's claims by offering statements verifying discriminatory practices at UPRC. After the co$-$worker's claim was settled, UPC conducted a routine audit that found that Dumas had falsified his track inspection records over a period of time in the past. UPC immediately terminated Dumas.

Issue: $1.$ Does Dumas have a valid employment discrimination claim?

$2.$ If so$,$ what theories would be best advanced by Dumas?