Blog

Unequal Treatment in Competing for Employment Is Sufficient Standing for Title VII Claim.

Posted by: Melville Johnson, P.C.
June 17, 2008
Topic: Employment Discrimination

The Law Office of Melville Johnson can represent clients in cases alleging discrimination under Title VII:

A consent decree was entered in a lawsuit brought by City of Syracuse officials to prohibit the State of New York and Onondaga County from administering a civil service examination, which the City contended disproportionately disqualified African American and female candidates for fire fighter positions. To meet the goal of making the fire department representative of the broader community, the consent decree allowed the Onondaga County Personnel Dept. (OCPD) to provide the department with two lists of candidates for open positions - a general list of all eligible candidates, and a special list of just eligible African American candidates.

Mr. David Vivenzio, Mr. Scott Wilkinson and Mr. John A. Finocchio, Jr., white males, were placed on the general eligible list. In 2004, and 2005, Mr. Vivenzio, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Finocchio were passed over for lower scoring candidates who were given preference, as a result of the lists created under the consent decree. Based on their failure to be selected, they filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. During the litigation of this case, multiple motions for summary judgment were filed.

The City and the County asserted that they would not have hired the Plaintiffs in lieu of the African American hires, and therefore Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The District Court concluded that the Plaintiffs were not complaining about the lack of equal treatment in actual hiring, but rather the lack of equal treatment in competing for employment. Under this analysis, the District Court concluded that they had standing to sue and to assert those claims.

The District Court then examined Plaintiffs' race discrimination claims under Title VII and the Equal Protection clause. The District Court held that race-conscious affirmative action plans are not prohibited, and in fact constitutes a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for selecting particular employees under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Thus, while the Plaintiffs clearly could establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the Defendants had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.

The Plaintiffs attempted to show that the consent decree was no longer viable at the time of the hiring decisions at issue, and therefore, the Defendant's legitimate non-discriminatory reason was pre-text. However, the District Court held that the consent decree was still valid in 2004 and 2005, because: 1) it did not contain terms that provided for an automatic dissolution upon satisfaction of the goals; and 2) even so, the Plaintiffs could not show that the goals had been met because they could not show that the number of African Americans in the City fire department approximated the percentage of African Americans in the City's labor pool. Because their race-based discrimination claims rested on this premise, they were without merit.

The District Court however denied the City's motion for summary judgment on Mr. Finocchio's claim for age discrimination. Mr. Finocchio, 52 years of age, made out a prima facie case of age discrimination, and the City showed no legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for passing him over for 18 younger candidates. Because individuals are not held liable under the ADEA, summary judgment as to the Mayor and Fire Chief was granted. Also, since the County did not control the City's hiring, the County's motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claims was granted.

The information above was primarily derived from the Judicial View

Blog

Unequal Treatment in Competing for Employment Is Sufficient Standing for Title VII Claim.

Topics

Recent Updates

Archives

Web Resources