"Member of a protected class" is probably a more accurate term (if applicable). (IANAL) And if she's a member of a protected class in the US or her state, then yes, any company has to consider the consequences of being involved in a protected class employment suit.
Although companies need to worry when firing members of a protected class, and we can debate whether that level of worry is underblown or overblown, lying about your educational record is a smoking gun that would make it trivial to dismiss the employee on the spot if the company wanted to do so.
One of the reasons I don't like anti discrimination laws. However, I am for allowing the EEOC, anti-trust or similar to order particular sets of companies to stop discrimination for a period of time if necessary, as I mentioned before.
I think your biases are getting best of you, I have seen sufficient number of people of similar ethnic background laid-off and fired. I do not think that is the basis of her employment's continuance. Its very likely that she is willing to do the dark and dirty work, some higher-ups do not want to do.
There is level fascination to mis-direct the causes, let me assure you if people of ethnic backgrounds are so protected - we would not be scratching and clawing at the lower rungs of corporate ladder.
With respect, I don't think you're reading my comment closely enough. I'm not saying that being a member of a protected class protects someone from being fired. I'm saying that a company is likely going to be more careful, and there is an added burden, to be able to demonstrate that that person was not fired in connection with being in that class.
It should be noted that everybody is a member of a protected class by virtue of their race, gender, etc. It's not something that only applies to minorities, and I wish people would stop perpetuating that misundrstanding.
