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Therefore, the employer rescinded the job offer, re-started the hiring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initially made to the golf pro because it was ultimately rescinded.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to Reeves’s complaint, Farmers immediately rescinded Martin’s offer and started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.
