Diaz V. Kraft Foods Global

In the case of Diaz v. Kraft Foods Global the legal issues were questioning whether or not the plaintiff has submitted adequate amount of evidence in order to defeat the defendant’s motion for judgement. During the appeals process the court found that the district court had misapplied the law which regarded proof there was discrimination. Michalec’s actions in the treatment of his non-white employees was by far unprofessional; however, since Michalec had at least one employee that was not subjected to the same treatment as Diaz and Pena evidence was unsupportive of being discriminatory. The appeals court rejected that reasoning holding a no “token” exception.

The evidence in this case that exists of a discriminatory motive that exists in this case is the Peter Michalec only gave the most unwanted jobs, such as cleaning the sewers and parking lots, to only the Hispanic employees. Michalec also told an employee, Robles, who was having a heart attack, to “Get the hell out of my office” and “Go die somewhere else”. Another scenario where Michalec showed discrimination was when Michalec did not allow the Hispanic employees to apply for jobs that were supposed to be open to all of the employees at Kraft Foods Global and also froze the hiring when there were only the names of African American and Hispanic candidates on the list.

It does not suffice for the employer to show that the supervisor, Michalec, treated some of the Hispanic employees more favorably than the plaintiffs, Jose Diaz and Robert Vela, because Title VII had little effect when the employer could defeat the claims of discrimination against him since Michalec had at least one employee of Hispanic origin whom he treated fairly. He would have to have treated all the workers of the same race unfairly in order for that to be a qualifying factor.

Discrimination is based on a variety of characteristics. Disparte treatment is how illegal employment discrimination is proved