Employees can avail themselves of two types of evidence to prove employment discrimination claims: (1) direct evidence and (2) indirect evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves unlawful discrimination, whereas indirect evidence is evidence that tends to prove unlawful discrimination. Direct evidence is more powerful than indirect evidence. On March 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts provided helpful guidance for those struggling to understand the difference between the two. Taveras v. Northeast Foods, LLC, No. 19-11793-RGS (D. Mass. March 4, 2021).

Yudelka Taveras worked for Northeast Foods as a District Manager, overseeing six stores in New Hampshire and one in Massachusetts. In September of 2017, Gregory Pollock became Ms. Taveras’s supervisor. Mr. Pollock made comments about Ms. Taveras being bi-lingual, including “Oh, are you thinking in Spanish now?” In October 2017, Mr. Pollock met with Ms. Taveras to demote her. During that meeting, Ms. Taveras claimed he had concerns about how Ms. Taveras interacted with employees, although he refused, when pressed, to disclose specific details. Mr. Pollock also repeated his concerns that he had difficulty understanding Ms. Taveras. Ms. Taveras sued and Northeast Foods asked the Court to grant its motion for summary judgment.

On March 4, 2021, the Court denied Northeast Foods’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Mr. Pollock’s comment that he had difficulty understanding Ms. Tavares was direct evidence of ethnic discrimination because they directly reflected an unlawful animus that was part of the contested employment decision. That, alone, was enough to defeat Northeast Foods’s motion.

The Court went on to state that Ms. Taveras would win even if it considered that comment to be indirect evidence as Ms. Taveras performed her job well, experienced an adverse employment action, and was replaced by someone with similar qualifications. According to the Court, the following evidence also supported Ms. Taveras’s claim: (1) evidence contradicted allegations of inadequate performance, (2) Mr. Pollock refused to give specific details of the alleged complaints, (3) no evidence corroborated these complaints, and (4) Mr. Pollock attempted to blame Ms. Taveras for not doing something he told her he would do himself. Read the full opinion here.

This is an important ruling for employees facing workplace discrimination. Employment attorney Benjamin Steffans represents employees in wrongful termination and workplace discrimination claims. Contact us today for a free consultation.