Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)

Citation: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Parent Document: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10693813/rolfs-v-home-depot/ ↗

Full Text

1,245 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 plaintiff’s 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 5 6 2 , 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 à vis members of their own

Other Sections in This Document (677)

Full Text