Monday, February 10, 2014

Sixth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer Which Discovered Attempted Discrimination and Did the Right Thing

Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion which demonstrated how an employer can avoid liability for blatantly unlawful discrimination when it discovers the problem soon enough to hit the re-start button.  Reeves v. Tenn. Farmer’s Mutual Ins. Co., No. 13-5824 (6th Cir. 2-4-14).  The hiring manager told a female subordinate that he would never hire a woman for the claims adjuster position and then promptly hired a golf-pro to fill the open position.  When she complained, the Company quickly investigated, removed the hiring manager from the process, rescinded the job offer, re-started the hiring process and ultimately promoted a different female employee into the position.   The plaintiff filed suit, but the court granted summary judgment to the employer. The Sixth Circuit affirmed not only because the plaintiff could not identify a male who received better treatment, but also because when the employer discovered the hiring manager’s attempted discrimination, “it did exactly what it was supposed to do.”

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff worked as a claims assistant. When a claims adjuster position became available, the employer failed to provide any training or parameters to the hiring manager.  When the plaintiff expressed interest in the position, the hiring manager told her that he would never hire a woman into the position because of “safety concerns.”  When the plaintiff called the female AVP of Claims, she was told there was nothing that could be done if the hiring manager did not want to hire her.  The hiring manager then interviewed 8 male candidates and the plaintiff.  Plaintiff was ranked second and a conditional job offer was made to a male golf pro.  When the plaintiff objected to the VP of Claims, an immediate call was placed to the hiring manager, who confirmed her allegations (because he obviously did not know any better).   The VP immediately put the hiring process on hold and brought in the employer’s legal department.   A more thorough investigation was conducted which confirmed that that hiring manager had made the alleged statement to the plaintiff, that he had disregarded the employer’s established practice of preferring internal candidates and that he had excluded potentially qualified candidates because they lacked college degrees.  Therefore, the employer rescinded the job offer, re-started the hiring process without the hiring manager’s participation, re-invited the plaintiff to apply and expanded the candidate pool to include two additional female applicants.

However, the plaintiff failed to impress the new hiring decisionmakers during her interview because she seemed anxious, rambled and criticized her co-workers.  She was not ranked among the top three candidates.  The golf pro, however, continued to impress and was ultimately ranked third. The top ranking candidate – another male – withdrew his application. The second ranked candidate was another female employee with greater tenure and experience than the plaintiff.  Therefore, she was offered the job.

The district court granted the employer summary judgment because the plaintiff could not identify a male who was treated better than her.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed.  The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she suffered an adverse job action when the conditional job offer was initially made to the golf pro because it was ultimately rescinded.

But our inquiry is practical, not metaphysical. In response to Reeves’s complaint, Farmers immediately rescinded Martin’s offer and started the hiring process over. . . .

In summary, once Farmers found out about Delk’s (attempted as it turns out) discrimination, it did exactly what it was supposed to do. Reeves’s claims fail as a matter of law.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.