Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)

Citation: Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)
Parent Document: Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8728300/rolfs-v-home-depot-usa-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,319 chars

Lex K. Larson, Employment Discrimination § 40.04, at 40-12 (2d ed.1996) (emphasis added). Thus, although the protected class need not include all women, the plaintiff must still prove that the subclass of women was unfavorably treated as compared to the corresponding subclass of men. See, e.g., Fisher v. Vassar College, 70 F.3d 1420, 1448 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that plaintiffs gender-plus-child-care claim was not adequately supported by the evidence because she failed to compare the tenure experience of women who took leaves of absence for child rearing with the tenure experience of men who took similar leaves of absence); Bryant v. International Sch. Servs., 675 F.2d 562, 575 (3d Cir.1982) (“No evidence was before the trial court to show that married males, in circumstances similar to [the married female] appellants, received better, or even different treatment.”); Willingham v. Macon Tel Publ’g Co., 507 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir.1975) (“The practical effect of interpreting Sec. 703 [of the Civil Rights Act] to include [gender-plus] discrimination is to impose an equal protection gloss upon the statute, i.e. similarly situated individuals of either sex cannot be discriminated against vis á vis members of their own sex unless the same distinction is made with respect to those of the opposite sex.”).

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text