Gilligan v. Department of Labor

94-36070 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 1996) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51123

Description

Hiring Official Who Is Consistent with Affirmative Action Plan Without Relying On It Does Not Violate Title VII

Abstract

The Ninth Circuit has held that defendant' employer's consideration of gender in its decision not to promote plaintiff, a white male, was legal. Plaintiff, a compliance specialist at the Department of Labor, applied for a promotion to assistant district director. He was not selected as one of three finalists (one man and two women). Asserting that he had been denied promotion on the basis of his gender, he brought this Title VII action. Employer maintained that its hiring decision had been made entirely on merit and without any reference to the applicants' gender. However, one of employer's assistant directors testified at trial that he had been instructed that "the only thing that would be acceptable upstairs would be the selection of a female manager." The district court held that, although gender played a role in employer's hiring decision, that decision was consistent with employer's affirmative action plan and did not violate Title VII. On appeal, pointing to employer's assertion that gender had not been a factor, plaintiff argued that, because employer had not relied upon its affirmative action plan in its hiring decision, any preference given to women was outside of the plan and thus in violation of Title VII. The court of appeals held that, in an institutional setting, whether hiring officials actually relied upon the organization's affirmative action plan was not necessarily determinative as long as they acted consistently with it. Noting that the focus must be on the hiring decision itself, the court found that a hiring official who was consistent with an affirmative action plan was indistinguishable from one who relied upon it.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
1970-01-01 06:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: