Plaintiffs were employees of Kraft of Hispanic descent. Over several years, their immediate supervisor made derogatory comments about Hispanics, and indicated his belief that Hispanics were “dummies” while white people were smart. He assigned plaintiffs to scrub the parking lot and clean sewers outside in winter, but did not assign these tasks to non-Hispanics. He refused to consider plaintiffs for some jobs. He hired one Hispanic, but reassigned her to the night shift, telling her that the white male would have the day position because he was white. When the company outsourced, and terminated employees, plaintiffs applied for new positions at Kraft, but were not hired. They sued, alleging racial discrimination. 

1. What is the legal issue in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. What evidence exists of a discriminatory motive in this case? Why is the supervisor’s (Michalec’s) statement that an employee was given a position because he is white only circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence in this case?

3. Why does it not suffice for the employer to show that the supervisor apparently treated some Latino (Hispanic) employees more favorably than the plaintiffs?

4. How do the direct and indirect methods of analyzing disparate treatment cases differ? If the indirect method had been used, would it have resulted in the same outcome? Why or why not?