Opinion ID: 3011954
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The letter states, in relevant part:

Text: Evidence reveals that after Charging Party was hired as a cashier, she constantly requested to be transferred to hardware or another sales position in areas in which she was highly experienced. During the same period that she was requesting to be transferred, males with less experience were being hired directly into sales positions. Some of the male applicants had indicated on their employment application that they were applying for available positions and were hired directly into sales positions. Since Charging Party was hired as a cashier rather than a sales associate, she experienced performance problems. As a result of not being allowed to transfer to a position she was qualified to perform, Charging Party’s employment was affected when her employment was terminated effective February 13, 1997 for not being able to perform the cashier’s job. Evidence reveals that Charging Party had received and [sic] overall rating of 3 on December 15, 1996. In addition, evidence reveals that a similarly situated white employee, who had received warnings for shorting and/or overage, was allowed to transfer to another department. The evidence as a whole makes it reasonable to conclude that Charging Party was discriminated against because of her sex (Female) and race (Black) with respect to Charging Party’s hiring, transfer and/or job assignment and discharge allegation.