As long as hiring managers can logically explain why one applicant was selected instead of another, courts probably won’t question the choice.
Recent case: Lynette, who is black, worked for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for 16 years, climbing the ranks from mail clerk to telecommunications specialist. She sought out training and experience and was generally regarded as a good worker.
When a promotion opened up, she applied. The job required technical skills in addition to administrative ones. Instead of Lynette, the hiring manager chose a white man with an engineering background.
Lynette sued, alleging race and sex discrimination.
Her case was dismissed after the DOT showed that the manager believed he needed someone with more advanced technical skills, not someone with mainly administrative experience. (Dupree v. LaHood, No. 10-1499, 7th Cir., 2012)
- Required by law or not, make harassment training mandatory
- New worry: 'Mob' charges for hiring illegals
- How to Make Social Networking Websites Work for Your Company
- Don't let petty grievances cost you sleep: They seldom cause discrimination liability
- Track all discipline so you can show harsh punishment wasn't retaliation