 |
|
|
|
Beware of Favoritism in the Hiring and Promotion Process
|
|
|
A federal appellate court recently allowed a discrimination case against an employer to proceed to trial because the hiring manager spent extra time with one of the candidates.
Audit your hiring policies and practices with the Employment Practices Self-Audit Workbook
Facts
William Snooks started work as a customer activities specialist for Duquesne Light Company (DLC) in 1997. In May 2004, he applied for a position as a field activities supervisor, along with six other employees. The hiring manager, Keith McGill, who is Caucasian, selected five of the applicants for interviews. Two of the interviewees, including Snooks, were African-American males, two were Caucasian males, and one was a Caucasian female named Lisa Stoehr. The interviewers decided that Snooks and Stoehr had the best qualifications for the position. At the time, both had been employed by DLC for nearly 30 years. A second round of interviews with Snooks and Stoehr was conducted.
After the first round of interviews, McGill toured each of DLC's field service locations. He had recently been promoted to field services manager, and he wanted to familiarize himself with the day-to-day operations of his department. During his tour of each facility, he went on a "ride along" with a customer activities specialist from each location. The field activities supervisor at the Penn Hills facility selected Stoehr, who was a customer activities specialist, to go on the "ride along" with McGill. On August 17, McGill accompanied Stoehr throughout her eight-hour shift.
Two days later, McGill conducted the second round of interviews for the open field activities supervisor position. After interviewing Snooks and Stoehr, he decided to hire Stoehr for the position. He and the other interviewers felt that Stoehr had performed better in the second interview and was therefore the better candidate.
Snooks filed a lawsuit in the federal district court alleging race and gender discrimination. DLC asked the court to dismiss the case because it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for hiring Stoehr. It asserted that Stoehr was hired instead of Snooks because she had a better understanding of the company's policies and procedures. The district court held that Snooks had not shown that DLC's proffered reason was a pretext for discrimination and dismissed the case. Snooks appealed the decision to the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
State-by-state comparision of 50 Employment Laws in 50 States, including discrimination laws
Third Circuit's decision
The Third Circuit reversed the district court's decision dismissing the case. The appellate court found that "the mere fact that McGill went on the ride along, knowing full well that he would be interviewing Stoehr two days later, could certainly raise a question in the mind of the jury of exactly why Stoehr was selected for the promotion."
The Third Circuit also agreed with Snooks that there were several inconsistencies in DLC's explanation of why it hired Stoehr instead of him. The court ruled that the inconsistencies could lead a jury to conclude that DLC's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason was actually a pretext for discrimination.
Basic Training for Supervisors, including hiring
Bottom line
Employers should do everything possible to ensure that all candidates for a position are treated equally during the hiring process. Any indication that certain employees are being treated more favorably can lead to a charge of discrimination.
Return to HR Hero Line e-zine for more tips and articles
Copyright 2009 M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC. NEW JERSEY EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER. This newsletter is intended for general information purposes only, and should not be used or taken as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.
|
|
Do You Know the Law in Your State?:
 |
|
|
|
|||||||
