Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Yaseenullah Amin v. Southland Corporation
Citations: 17 F.3d 1433; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 12195; 1994 WL 65964Docket: 93-2197
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; March 1, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Citation of unpublished dispositions in the Fourth Circuit is generally discouraged unless for specific legal principles, and copies must be provided when cited. Yaseenullah Amin, the Plaintiff-Appellant, challenged a district court's summary judgment favoring Southland Corporation, the Defendant-Appellee, regarding his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Amin, who is of Pakistani descent, alleged he was rehired at lower wages due to his national origin. His complaints were limited to his second rehiring and an improper assignment to a store farther from his home, neglecting to mention his first rehiring. Both the Arlington County Human Rights Commission and the EEOC found Amin's claims to be unfounded. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Southland because Amin failed to exhaust administrative remedies concerning his first rehiring and his second claim was deemed meritless. The court clarified that a plaintiff must pursue administrative relief through the EEOC before bringing a federal lawsuit and noted Amin's failure to file within the required 300 days for the first rehiring claim. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed. Amin's claim that Southland rehired him at a lower pay rate due to his national origin is deemed meritless. To prove this claim, Amin must demonstrate: (1) membership in a protected group; (2) rehiring by Southland; (3) qualification for a higher pay rate; and (4) that similarly situated employees outside his group were rehired at higher rates. While Amin is acknowledged as a member of a protected group and was indeed rehired, he fails to provide evidence for the last two criteria. Even if a prima facie case were established, Southland sufficiently rebutted the claim with undisputed affidavits showing that five out of fourteen rehired employees received higher pay, three of whom were Pakistani. Among those rehired at lower rates, three were also Pakistani, indicating no discriminatory pattern. Consequently, the district court's summary judgment in favor of Southland is affirmed. Additionally, issues raised by Amin regarding personal leave and store location in administrative proceedings were not included in his district court complaint and are therefore not considered in this appeal, as there is no evidence of plain error or fundamental injustice.