Rachells V. Cingular Wireless Employee Services

Week 7 - Case Questions

Cheryl King

Grantham University

Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Services

        The legal issues in this is case is whether the plaintiff was discriminated against because of his race in the RIF process when Cingular Wireless and AT&T merged. The district court granted a summary judgment to Cingular but the appeals court remanded and reversed that decision for further proceedings.

        The Staffing Integration Guidelines for Human and Managers was used as guidance to rate and evaluate each applicant. There were 2 components considered in this formal evaluation. One being the applicants 2004 performance evaluation and the other was scores from each interview question (RIF score). There were 3 categories in which the applicants were to be scored: create customer loyalty, drive for results and use of sound judgment. The plaintiff received a score of 2.6 putting him in seventh place out of nine applicants. He also stated that he was only asked questions in 2 of the 3 categories.

        The plaintiff had received several awards and recognition for his sales performance from 1999 to 2003. In 2003 he had the best/highest performance evaluation on any Cingular Wireless employee. In 2002, 2003 and 2004 the plaintiff had the highest attainment percentages in comparison to his peers. The employer only considered the plaintiff’s 2004 performance and the RIF score when making their decision that is why the court did not defer to the employers decision.

        I agree with the appeals court decision to remand for further proceedings. There is enough evidence to show that there was some type of biased on the employer’s part when they made their decision.

Rosebrough v. Buckeye

        The legal issue in this case is whether or not the plaintiff was discriminated against because of her disability and did the employer violate the Americans with disability Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment to the employer but this decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings by the appeals court.

        The appeals court stated that the plaintiff was a bus driver trainee not a bus driver and she was training to obtain her CDL. A CDL was not necessary or required when in training to become a bus driver.