Where a car salesperson filed a complaint alleging that he was subjected to discrimination by the respondent employer on the basis of his Jewish religion and his Israeli national origin in violation of G.L.c. 151B, the complaint should be dismissed because the complainant failed to produce any credible evidence that he received leads that were different in quality or quantity from those given to others.
“Proven facts in the record establish that Complainant’s national origin is Israeli and that he practices the Jewish faith. Complainant acknowledges that he was told during his interview that his national origin was ‘absolutely no problem.’ The record establishes that manager John Jamali believed that Complainant’s Israeli/Jewish identity was an asset because the dealership had many Jewish clients. Notwithstanding the fact that Complainant took long lunches, returned from lunch with red eyes and smelling of marijuana, and used headphones while working at his computer, he was regarded as a satisfactory car salesperson by Jamali who acknowledged that he had no intention of firing him.”
“As far as adverse action and disparate treatment are concerned, Complainant maintains that he received fewer leads for luxury cars than did Respondent’s other salespeople and that this disparity accounts for his failure to earn a living wage at the dealership. Complainant characterizes himself as a talented salesperson who would have been a successful member of Respondent’s sales force had he been treated in the same manner as other sales associates. Such an assertion, however, is not supported by the record.”
“Despite Complainant’s charges of adverse action and disparate treatment, there is no credible evidence that he was singled out for poor treatment or denied sales opportunities given to other members of the sales staff. Complainant acknowledges that John Jamali commented during their initial interview that Complainant’s national origin was ‘absolutely no problem.’ Jamali thereafter held open a sales position for Complainant during the latter’s month-long trip to Israel. These are not the actions of a sales manager harboring discriminatory animus but, rather, one who viewed Complainant as a valuable addition to his sales staff in light of the dealership’s many Jewish clients.”
“The crux of Complainant’s disparate treatment claim is that he was given fewer leads for luxury cars than were given to Respondent’s other salespeople. Notwithstanding this assertion, Complainant failed to produce any credible evidence that he received leads that were different in quality or quantity from those given to others. …”
“In contrast to Complainant’s portrayal of himself as a victim of discrimination, the record depicts an employee still in training who was frustrated by not making more sales. Complainant attributes his failure to Respondent’s discriminatory actions, but it appears that his modest sales were due to other factors such as lacking a client base at the dealership, the small inventory of vehicles at the dealership, Complainant’s excessive lunches, and other distractions which undermined Complainant’s effectiveness. Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the proven facts do not support a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination based on religion and/or national origin.”
MCAD, et al. v. Auto Mall Collection (Lawyers Weekly No. 22-012-20) (12 pages) (Waxman, Hearing Officer) Yael Magen for the complainant; Travis T. Pregent for the respondent (Docket No. 16 BEM 03470) (June 22, 2020).
