As demonstrated in this legal case analysis of Sarah Crone versus the United States Parcel Service (UPS) from 2002, sex discrimination lawsuits can often involve a number of factors and leave a number of elements in conjecture. What women can and cannot physically do is often the subject of other sex discrimination lawsuits that emerge and it is one of the central tenants of this case. This case analysis notes the specifics of the case against the United States Parcel Service lodged by Sarah Crone.

The case of Sarah Crone v. United Parcel Service, Inc., (2002) was a sex discrimination suit filed against the plaintiff’s employer, who failed to promote Crone, who was otherwise well-qualified, because of her gender. The district court that initially heard Crone’s case ruled in favor ofUPS, determining that Crone did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claim; this decision was upheld by the US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Even though the case of Sarah Crone versus the United Parcel Service (UPS)  received a great deal of public attention, it is nonetheless unlikely that this particular case will have a substantial impact on subsequent sex/gender discrimination suits against employers, as a review of cases prior to this one reveals a trend of courts ruling in favor of employers because it is often difficult for plaintiffs to tangibly prove they have been victims of discrimination.

While TitleVIIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, it also lays out the procedures for potential litigants to ensure that they have followed before they consider legal action (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). TitleVIIstipulates that potential plaintiffs must make efforts to resolve discrimination charges by filing a report with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within a particular time frame (generally 180 to 300 days) after the alleged discrimination has occurred (OYEZ US Supreme Court Multimedia, 2005).

It is also recommended that even prior to lodging an EEOC complaint, the employee should ensure that all conflict resolution channels within the organization have been utilized. Only after the EEOC has reviewed a case and made a ruling should a victim of alleged discrimination consider legal action. Once they do, though, they must be certain that they can prove they have been victimized; courts have historically ruled against affirming the employee’s complaints. The implication for organization’s HR departments is that they should clearly articulate internal policies for managing and responding to employees’ charges of discrimination so that conflicts can be mediated and resolved prior to costly and embarrassing litigation.

Related Articles

Women, Science and Professional Limitations