Not yet a Member?
HR Magazine is highlighting the next generation of HR leaders.
Is your employee handbook ready for the New Year? With SHRM’s Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
30+ HR education programs, including 4 NEW programs on hot topics, are available for registration.
Join us in Chicago for the latest trends and technology in talent management, and what to expect in the future.
A court dismissed a firefighter’s racial discrimination claim, finding that all individuals competing for the same promotion through the same testing process are not similarly situated.
Arnold Scott sought recovery from his employer, the city of Columbia, for alleged racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Scott’s claims focused on the city’s failure to promote him to the position of battalion chief. Scott alleged this non-promotion was due, at least in part, to a discriminatory promotional testing scheme. Scott also alleged that he was subjected to retaliatory discipline after he made complaints about perceived discrimination. Finally, he alleged he was denied overtime pay to which he was entitled. The city filed for summary judgment.
The court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on Scott’s disparate treatment claim because he failed to present evidence that he was treated less favorably than any similarly situated employee outside his protected class with respect to the promotion process. Scott argued that he directly compared himself to the class of 2009. He claimed that white applicants who underwent similar testing conditions were promoted, but he was not.
However the court found that Scott’s argument would not support a claim of discrimination because it would effectively eliminate the requirement for similarly situated comparators by assuming that all individuals vying for the same promotion through the same process are similarly situated. If this were enough, every denial of a promotion would support a prima facie case of discrimination so long as the individual promoted was from outside a protected class to which at least one individual who was not selected belonged, the court said. The argument also fails because it relies on allegations that “the class of 2009” and unidentified “white men” were treated differently than Scott without providing any specific details as to why either the group or individuals should be considered similarly situated or precisely how they were treated differently under the same or similar circumstances, according to the court.
The court dismissed Scott’s disparate impact claim because he failed to provide statistical evidence, instead relying on subjective and anecdotal evidence. It also dismissed Scott’s retaliation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, it dismissed Scott’s wage claim, noting that Scott failed to offer any argument to support his claim.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Choose from dozens of free webcasts on the most timely HR topics.
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies