After her employment application was rejected, Tasha Chapman sued H & R Block alleging discrimination on the basis of religion and that the company had fostered a "hostile work environment."
When the New York City Civil Court dismissed her case, Chapman appealed to the Appellate Term, First Department, which believed that the lady failed to establish a discriminatory basis for H & Block's actions, particularly since the company's characterization of her as "rude," "combative" and having a "poor attitude," hadn't been disproved.
Chapman's "suspicions" of discriminatory intent, without any evidence of misconduct, wasn't enough to warrant that claim's continuation.
The AT1 also tidily disposed of Chapman's hostile work environment theory since she was never actually employed by the company.
Was there no accounting for that?
To view a copy of the Appellate Tern's decision, please use this link: Chapman v. H & R Block