If you came here because someone used a slur, made sexual comments, treated you differently because of age, race, disability, religion, pregnancy, or sex, start with the specific conduct or decision. The legal category comes after the facts.
Define the action, the criteria, the decision-makers, the comparison, and the evidence that points both ways.
Discrimination is not proved by unfairness alone. The question is whether a protected characteristic affected a covered employment decision. That requires a precise action, a defensible comparison, a real decision chain, and a serious account of the employer's stated reason.
A Useful Comparison Is Specific
‘Others were treated better’ is not enough. A meaningful comparison may require the same supervisor, policy, conduct, qualifications, decision period, or selection standard. Sometimes the better proof is not a comparator at all, but a biased statement, changed criterion, statistical pattern, or unexplained process departure.
Define The Adverse Decision And Comparison
A broad claim that someone was treated differently must be translated into a specific employment action and a meaningful comparison. The relevant comparators are not simply coworkers who seem similar; the analysis may require comparable role, supervisor, conduct, policy, decision period, qualifications, or decision standard. Sometimes the strongest proof is not a comparator but a biased statement, a statistical pattern, a process deviation, a manipulated criterion, or evidence that the stated reason is not the real reason.
Follow The Decision Process
Identify who proposed, influenced, reviewed, and approved the action; what information each person had; what criteria were used; and whether the criteria changed. A neutral formal decision-maker can still rely on biased information, while a biased supervisor may lack a causal role. The record must connect motive or unequal treatment to the action. Hiring and promotion cases may require applicant-pool, qualification, interview, score, and selection records. Discipline and discharge cases often require policy, comparator, performance, and chronology records.
Treat Defenses Seriously
Employers frequently assert performance, misconduct, restructuring, qualifications, attendance, business necessity, or consistency. A strong worker-side analysis does not merely call those reasons pretextual. It tests factual accuracy, contemporaneous support, consistent application, decision timing, process, and whether the same concern was treated differently elsewhere. The existence of a legitimate reason can defeat or narrow a claim if the evidence does not connect protected status to the decision.
Records That Show How The Decision Was Made
- Decision documents, scorecards, interview notes, ranking sheets, and approval chains.
- Performance records before and after the disputed event.
- Comparator discipline, selection, promotion, pay, or accommodation records where lawfully obtainable.
- Statements, messages, stereotypes, or coded language tied to decision-makers.
- Demographic or outcome data appropriate to the actual selection process.
- Policies, exception practices, and deviations.
Where The Analysis Can Break Down
- Protected classes, employer coverage, causation standards, administrative prerequisites, and remedies vary.
- Harsh treatment is not necessarily discriminatory without a protected-status connection.
- A statistical disparity requires a defensible comparison group and method.
- Confidential coworker information should not be improperly obtained or published.
What To Do Next
- 1. Identify one or more discrete employment decisions and dates.
- 2. List the qualifications or policy criteria the employer says mattered.
- 3. Describe comparators by relevant facts, not just names.
- 4. Preserve charge-filing and agency deadlines through official sources.
A Charge Is Not The Evidence Plan
A formal charge identifies the alleged discrimination and preserves an administrative route. It is not, by itself, the complete factual record. A supportable charge should name the actual decisions, dates, actors, protected basis, and factual connection without overstating what is not yet known. The accompanying evidence plan should go further: what proves each material fact, what weakens it, what is missing, and who controls the missing source.
The June 2026 EEOC enforcement plan makes this distinction especially practical. A matter may receive mediation, substantial investigation, focused requests, or earlier closure. The worker's file should remain coherent in every path. That means preserving the selection record, explanation history, comparator basis, relevant performance history, and the specific process that produced the decision before access or memory changes.