McCormack & McAuliffe v. Campus Crest Group, L.L.C.
Elizabeth Braquet Gibson
LeTourneau University
Business Law – Sanders

Heather McCormack & Nicole M. McAuliffe
v.
Campus Crest Group, L.L.C. (including business subsidiaries)
United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

Campus Crest is a major developer in the United States that builds and manages multiple properties on College campuses throughout the country. The firm has locations and subsidiaries in numerous states and has seen its share of scandal during its duration.
Heather McCormack (Plaintiff #1) was hired by Campus Crest in 2008 as an operations controller for Campus Crest. Later that same year, Ms. McCormack was promoted to the VP of Administrative Services and given a raise to $100,000 a year with an added bonus at the end of 2008 in the amount of $50,000. For several years the Plaintiff was exposed to unstable working environments, requests by upper management to falsify records, numerous accounts of racial discrimination against prospective employees and the sexual advances from a company official (VP, Sharpe). Ms. McCormack stated that while employed by Campus Trust Group, L.L.C. she was confronted on numerous occasions with hostile and discriminatory comments by the company’s executive vice president, Brian Sharpe. She stated the extreme unease she felt in the work environment due to these actions. Mr. Sharpe is quoted by coworkers as often making statements that were derogatory towards women in general, not just the Plaintiff. He is quoted at making comments such as “if I hear another female cry I may scream, I need some more testosterone in here” & referring to female employees as “retards.” Along with the uncomfortable situation the actions of VP Sharpe created, Ms. McCormack gave detailed descriptions of hiring practices used by the company and the arrogation of employees and managers to steer clear from hiring African Americans. Ms. McCormack was shocked with the response to her hiring a qualified black applicant as one of her direct reports. Her supervisor, Bobbitt, is quoted as saying “so who hired the black girl with the red hair?”(Heather Mccormack and Nicole M. Mcauliffe v. Campus Crest Group. (n.d.). FindACase.) Soon after hiring the qualified applicant, she was told to “get rid of her, for whatever reason she could come up with.” Ms. McCormack states that she was fired, wrongfully, for her refusal to following these unethical and illegal practices. In 2009, after refusing to comply with the unethical requests of upper management the Plaintiff was relieved from her duties with the company and fired. In 2011, McCormack filed suit against her former employer, Campus Crest Group, L.L.C. with accusations of sex discrimination and wrongful termination as a result of her refusal to follow the unethical practices of the company. Ms. McCormack was the joined by another former employee, Nicole McAuliffe who shared many of the same experiences. Nicole McAuliffe (Plaintiff #2) stated that Campus Crest Group, L.L.C. practiced “blatant discrimination against people of color.” (Official court record) The complaints helped to back up the accusations of Plaintiff 1 (Ms. McCormack). Ms. McAuliffe accounts that the company urged their employees to exclude “qualified blacks – as well as qualified applicants over the age of 40.” (Legal Schnauzer. (n.d.). : How Far Will One Company Go to Avoid Hiring Blacks?) Nicole states that she was informed of the company wanting young, white females only for positions in their rental property offices stating that they wanted to promote the type of environment that would attract white tenants. She continually questioned the fact that applicants should be hired based on merit rather than race and she was later let go due to supposed layoffs by the company.
The case in question is based on the claims of these two Plaintiffs regarding treatment they received by men in upper management with the firm as well as their accounts of the hiring practices the company urged upon its employees. The Plaintiff’s said hiring practices included the want of the Defendant Company to limit its new hires to white females and the company’s persistence in urging their employees to stray away from the hiring of “people of color.” In the official court documents a few of the counts in question were listed as (count 1) claims of sex discrimination, (count 2) retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, (count 3) breach of contract, which I am addressing in my research. The documents also noted (count 4) violation of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, (count 5) violation of state public policy, (count 6) alter ego (of the Defendant Company) and (count 7) constructive trust.
The claims of both Plaintiffs have been dismissed by the Defendant Company as a “garden variety, discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuit.” (Guldin, W. (2011, January Friday). Civil lawsuit alleges discrimination. Columbia Daily Tribune). The companies listed in the lawsuit have since admitted to the actions of Mr. Sharpe being questionable in the past, even stating that he has been witnessed using threating wording and language at times, but in response to this admission the company replied that Plaintiff #1 (McCormack) was guilty of the same sort of behavior while employed with the firm.
It is my opinion that the company should be held accountable for their inability to follow the law as stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC. The complaints made to the EEOC were validated by numerous accounts from other employees and witnesses since the start of the lawsuit. These employee accounts included actions of Former Chief Marketing Officer, Shannon King quoted saying “We have Southern investors; they do not like for us to hire blacks.” (Guldin, W. (2011, January Friday). Civil lawsuit alleges discrimination. Columbia Daily Tribune). This is direct violation of the laws put in place by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent racial discrimination in the workplace and the company is displaying behavior that is disgraceful in modern day America. The Act states “To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.” (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.) The actions of the company challenge and defy the specific detail of the Act in more than one area specifically Sec. 2000e-2 as listed below.
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
The company responded to the claims of the Plaintiff and tried to turn around the blame, not denying that any of the accusations were indeed true or untrue, rather trying to incriminate the Plaintiffs of the same sort of behavior in hopes of discrediting them in the courts eyes. The Defendant claims that both Plaintiffs were let go due to poor job performance as well as company downsizing, both claims being hard to believe when looking at employment records of each Plaintiff and the state of the company’s success during the case. The Plaintiffs have since motioned for Joinder in June of 2011 to include all subsidiaries of the company to include any L.L.C. created by the company to assist in the selling, buying and developing of properties across the United States. As of today (from records found) this case is still in litigation.

References:

* District Court Listing, North Carolina 2011. (n.d.). * Guldin, W. (2011, January Friday). Civil lawsuit alleges discrimination. Columbia Daily Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/local/civil-lawsuit-alleges-discrimination/article_72c03b7c-730c-54fd-87b9-95fa93636f0f.html * Heather McCormack and Nicole M. McAuliffe v. Campus Crest Group. (n.d.). FindACase™. Retrieved from http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110810_0001757.WNC.htm/qx * Legal Schnauzer. (n.d.). : How Far Will One Company Go to Avoid Hiring Blacks? Retrieved from http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-far-will-one-company-go-to-avoid.html * McCormack v. Campus Crest Group, LLC et al. (n.d.). Employment Lawsuit. Retrieved from http://www.schneiderwallace.com/other_cases_detail.php?id=169040 * Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm