Opinion ID: 755768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discriminatory Discharge Claims

Text: 24 Ford argues that Austin is precluded from establishing a prima facie case by her own pleadings. Because Austin alleged in her pleadings that she refused to work extra hours and thereby helped to cause a cash flow crisis at Ford, Ford claims, she admitted that she was not qualified for the position from which she was discharged. Ford also maintains that, whether or not Austin has established a prima facie case, Austin's admissions doom her quest for discrimination damages because they show that Ford Models fired her for good reason[s] that were not pretextual. 25 Austin's pleadings admitted that she stopped working extra hours in January 1994 and that as a result of Ford's failure to make the necessary adjustments in [her] workload, the cash flow in the company suffered and a crisis developed. Austin also acknowledged that, as early as September 1993, her supervisors had continuous complaints about the pace at which she was performing her job. In many cases, such admissions by a plaintiff would be sufficient to establish that an employer fired an employee for a legitimate, non-pretextual, non-discriminatory reason. However, in the context of Austin's allegations of discrimination as to overtime and staffing allocation, her statement that she refused to work extra or overtime hours without pay can be construed as a refusal to comply with working conditions of employment prohibited by Title VII and the ADEA. If indeed Ford denied Austin overtime pay because of her race and denied Austin equal staffing assistance because of her race and age, then it would plainly be discrimination for Ford to fire Austin for refusing to work unpaid overtime hours without an assistant. Thus, we vacate the district court's dismissal of Austin's race and age discriminatory discharge claims.