“Louise didn’t get the promotion because she performed poorly on the oral exam,” said Supervisor Nathan Hawkins, “not because she’s a woman.”
“Louise thinks the promotion process was rigged against her,” said HR Director Carolyn McGill. “She’s suing us for gender discrimination.”
“I know Louise was deeply disappointed that she lost out on the promotion to a male candidate,” said Nathan, “but the man we picked was a strong contender for the job.”
“Louise points out that she had 15 more years of relevant experience than did the man chosen instead of her,” said Carolyn. “She also says she was considered the natural candidate for the position because she was the person next in line for the job based on the normal succession order. She wonders why the promotion process was suddenly changed.”
“How was the process changed?” asked Nathan.
“Louise says the original job posting said the hiring process would have both a written exam and an oral exam,” said Carolyn. “However, at the last minute, the written exam was removed. Louise thinks that was suspicious because she’d previously nailed the written exam when she sought the job she now has.”
“I’m not sure how changing one part of the promotion process was a problem,” said Nathan. “It certainly doesn’t scream gender bias to me.”
“Louise believes that other parts of the process also screamed gender bias,” said Carolyn. “For instance, she notes that she was the only woman among the seven candidates for the position. Furthermore, the selection committee was comprised only of men.”
“Louise has to realize that she’s working in a male-dominated field, and there’s nothing we can do about that,” said Nathan.
“According to Louise,” said Carolyn, “we’re not doing enough. She also says the questions used for the oral exam formerly included an inquiry about DEI – diversity, equity and inclusion. However, at the last minute, the DEI question was removed, which hurt Louise more than the male candidates.”
“It seems to me that we have the right to take out questions we don’t think are moving the process forward,” said Nathan.
“Louise points out that the criteria used to judge the oral exam were subjective,” said Carolyn. “As a result, the men on the hiring committee were allowed to use too much discretion and to exercise potentially biased judgment.”
“We didn’t discriminate against Louise because of her gender,” said Nathan. “We should challenge this lawsuit.”
Result: The employer lost. The court refused to toss out the case. The woman showed that she might not have been chosen for the promotion because of her gender.
The judge said the fact that the employer changed the process to focus on the oral exam rather than on the written exam was potential proof of bias, especially because the job posting said both types of exams would be given.
Furthermore, not only did the removal of the DEI question hurt the woman’s chances, but the court also noted that she had 15 more years of relevant experience than did the male candidate who got the job. She also was the natural choice for the promotion based on the normal succession order.
And the criteria used for judging the candidates were subjective, which could’ve allowed the all-male hiring committee to disfavor the only female candidate.
Cite: Parlato v. Town of East Haven, U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut, No. 3:22-cv-01094, 11/26/24.
(From the January 17, 2025, issue of HR Manager’s Legal Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here).