Arnett Moore, a 51-year-old Baptist Black man, worked as a Division Manager for Avon. When Avon restructured, the company compared the performance of division managers in the region. Moore’s numbers came in last. The decision-makers documented the process, applied objective sales data, and had multiple levels of approval. As a result, Avon fired Moore.
Moore then sued. First, he said Avon discriminated against him because of his disability or perceived disability Then he added sex. Then age. Then, race. And even religion. In the end, his complaint alleged six different forms of discrimination.
None of it impressed the court. The judge summed it up bluntly:
“Moore’s kitchen-sink approach to his discrimination claims only serves to highlight the extent to which his claims are mutually inconsistent and unsupported by the facts. Was he discriminated against because he was disabled? Because of his age? Because of his sex? Because of his race? Or because of his religion? While Moore urges the Court to answer ‘all of the above,’ on the basis of the evidence before the Court, it appears the correct answer is ‘none of the above.'”
Case dismissed.
Here’s the takeaway: Throwing the kitchen sink at an employer without evidence doesn’t make a case stronger. In fact, it makes it much, much weaker. What wins lawsuits is consistent documentation and a fair process, not throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
And to my management-side brethren, you are welcome for a great quote to drop into your summary judgment briefs.
