The most interesting aspect of
the decision is the Court’s rejection of the application of the honest belief
rule, which is generally an insurmountable obstacle for plaintiffs asserting
employment discrimination claims. “Under the "honest belief"
rule, if the employer honestly, but mistakenly, believes in the proffered
reason given for the hiring decision at issue, then the employee cannot establish
the requisite pretext.”
As discussed above, appellant did more than simply disagree
with the University's proffered reasons for denying him the position. Appellant
supported his denials with corroborating evidence upon which it may be reasonably
inferred that many of the proffered reasons for denying appellant the position
either had no basis in fact or were insufficient to support the decision.
Appellant also produced circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory animus
based on age. Dr. Morawski's remarks to appellant and the inferences properly
drawn therefrom create a genuine factual issue whether the members of the
search committee honestly believed the proffered reasons for denying appellant
the position and whether appellant's age was the true reason for its decision.
The Court discussed in great detail why the plaintiff was
able to sufficiently demonstrate that the university’s explanation for not
hiring him were pretextual. The Court found that the plaintiff showed
that the stated reasons had no basis in fact or were insufficient to justify
the decision to not interview or hire him.
The university gave five reasons why he was not selected for an
interview or hired instead of the young and inexperienced candidate:
1.
The plaintiff allegedly “crossed boundaries with students
by taking them out to a restaurant and socializing with them outside of the classroom
setting.” However, the only such events were
held after classes were over for the semester and were attended by other department
faculty and held at a restaurant on campus.
No one had ever criticized these outings during his fourteen years with
the university. Indeed, this issue had apparently not been discussed in the
selection committee meetings.
2.
There had
been “complaints from some of [his] former students that [he] had permitted
students to forgo a mandatory research paper.”
He denied this allegation. The
only research paper he ever required was when he taught a class on behalf of
the department chair which required a mandatory research paper and no one else
was willing or qualified to teach. He
distributed an example of a research paper to the class and still had two
copies of research papers he received from students of that class. One of the selection committee had been
critical that the students were not prepared to conduct research.
3.
Some
students had complained that he had given "favorable grades" and “that
he dismissed classes early.” However, when he asked the department chair
about whether his grades were too high, he was told his grading was not a
problem. He denied dismissing class
early very often and contended that he had kept students over just as often.
4. He had cancelled classes. He denied that this happened regularly or
often. None of the selection committee
members would admit that they had raised this as an issue, had personal
knowledge of it or discussed it.
5.
He was “not the best at paperwork." However,
he had never been reprimanded, disciplined or counselled about paperwork during
his fourteen year employment. Moreover, while
there was some dispute about this, there was evidence that administrative
duties were less than 10% of the full-time teaching position.
In
addition to casting doubt on the university’s explanation for his treatment,
the plaintiff also produced evidence that age was the actual reason he was
denied an interview and job. In
particular, when asked if age was the reason he was not selected, he was told
by the selection committee chair that they were seeking “mid-level”
candidates. While such a comment does
not compel a finding of age discrimination (and is, therefore, not direct
evidence), it does constitute an inference of discrimination because the
speaker inferred age as correlated with experience.
The
plaintiff was also able to demonstrate pretext by comparing his relative
qualifications to the successful candidate.
"Relative qualifications establish triable issues of
fact as to pretext where the evidence shows that either (1) the plaintiff was a
plainly superior candidate, such that no reasonable employer would have chosen
the latter applicant over the former, or (2) plaintiff was as qualified * * *
if not better qualified than the successful applicant, and the record contains
'other probative evidence of discrimination.' "
The University gave several reasons
why the successful candidate was more qualified than the plaintiff:
1.
She “had more experience with agency settings." However, the plaintiff
produced evidence that he had worked for multiple agencies and hospitals,
supervised more than 50 student interns and 200 employees. As an execute director with a county board, he
"provided oversight for more than 30 agencies that provided social
services.”
2.
She had a "more well-rounded resume." However, she had no prior
teaching experience at the time she applied for the position, in contrast to
the plaintiff’s fourteen years of teaching experience. Indeed, the plaintiff had more years of
teaching at the BSW and MSW level than any of the candidates interviewed for
the teaching position. Moreover, the
plaintiff’s LISW-S license meant that he could supervise students and able to
perform clinical work without supervision.
One of the committee members admitted that this would contribute to the
job, but that the successful candidate lacked this qualification.
3.
She had "more field education
experience."
4.
She was "organized and had been
a supervisor and had been effective."
5.
She was a "better fit" for
the position.
In contrast, the plaintiff was unable to produce evidence showing an inference
of disability discrimination to survive summary judgment on that claim.
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 be changed or 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.
