LOS ANGELES (CN) – An executive assistant accused 20th Century Fox Film Corporation of discriminating against her because she did not have the “look” that FOX required of the new, young female employees.
Plaintiff Joyce Korneta was hired as an executive assistant at Fox two years ago.
The suit alleges that she “sought to submit internal application to apply for other posted jobs within Fox … However, Fox engages in the corporate practice of illegal employment discrimination of making preferential hiring, promotion and transfer decisions to female applicants based on illegal selection criteria, including female’s age and appearance as opposed to applying selection criteria based on the actual qualifications required for the position.”
Korneta alleges that “Fox selected a female who was far less qualified and experienced … but was younger and fit the appearance that Fox required of its female staff.
The complaint also says Fox set up fake interviews for black men.
“Fox also routinely engaged in illegal race discrimination and attempted to make Plaintiff an instrument of this policy of race discrimination,” she says.
According to Korneta, “Even though an unqualified young female with the ‘correct appearance’ for a female had already been selected for the position,” Fox set up fake interviews with three black men “to give the appearance that (1) the African Americans were actually being considered – they were not, and (2) that Fox was following its hiring policies – which they were not.”
Asides from discriminatory employment practices, the complaint states that “Fox also engaged in a pattern and practice of violating California wage and hour laws … requiring plaintiff and her peer to work overtime without pay, to work off the clock, and to falsify their time records to show that they had taken a lunch break, when both lunch and rest breaks were prohibited.”
Korneta seek compensatory, general and punitive damages among others. She is represented by Nancy Abrolat with Abrolat & Associates.
- Justice Whacks Pixar-Lucasfilm|Agreement as Antitrust Violation