A woman is fired after committing a blatant and severe policy violation. Then she sues, claiming a male co-worker did something similar and got away with it. Read the facts and decide who won this real-life case:

The facts:

While out of town for a sales conference, an employee had too much to drink at a networking function. Two co-workers who were also attending had to escort her back to her hotel room. In the hotel, the employee assaulted one of the colleagues, pulling her by the hair and forcing her to the ground.

When they got back to work, the incident was reported and the employee was fired.

She sued for gender bias, claiming that if she was a man, she would have kept her job. The basis of her argument: At the same conference, a male employee had too much to drink and missed a meeting, and he was not fired.

The employer said:

The two employees’ situations were not comparable. Both offenses involved alcohol, but missing a meeting is not the same thing as assaulting a co-worker.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: To prove her case for gender discrimination, the employee had to show that a “similarly situated” male employee was treated more favorably than her. The best she could come up with was the guy who missed his meeting.

The court agreed that argument couldn’t fly — that would only have worked if the man had done something as severe as what she did and wasn’t punished. The case was thrown out.

Cite: Rhodes v. Curascript, Inc.

Tags: assault, discipline, intoxicated