Gbenoba v. Montgomery County Dep't of Health and Human Servs.

No. S-00-3163 (D. Md. July 23, 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54841

Description

Employer Entitled to Summary Judgment Where Plaintiff Failed to Show That He Was Better Qualified Than Other Employees for Promotions That He Did Not Get

Abstract

The district court has granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in employment discrimination action. Plaintiff, an African-American man of Nigerian descent, worked for defendant Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services as an income services specialist. Between 1997 and 1999, plaintiff applied for several promotions, but was selected for none of them. Plaintiff claimed that he was qualified for each promotion, but was denied advancement because of his race and national origin. Plaintiff also claimed that he was paid less than other employees with the same experience, grade, title, education, and training who were of a different race or national origin. The district court held that, although plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to ten promotional opportunities, his unsupported and self-serving assertions of superior qualifications for each position failed to generate a triable issue of fact. Citing Evans v. Techs. Applications and Servs. Co., 80 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1996), the court found that, when a defendant has asserted “relative qualifications” as the reason for its decision to promote another individual over plaintiff, and the plaintiff has no evidence to establish falsity other than his or her own qualifications, the plaintiff must show that he or she was better qualified. The court noted that plaintiff offered no admissible evidence as to what the criteria were for each of the open positions, nor any evidence that his education and experience were particularly suited to any of those positions. The court also found plaintiff’s allegation that defendant violated Title VII and section 1983 by paying him an unequal amount based on his race and national origin to be wholly lacking in proof. As evidence of unequal pay, plaintiff offered only a statement made another employee at a staff meeting that “white employees of similar grade and title were paid higher and better salaries than their minority counterparts because when hired, the requested and negotiated higher salaries, whereas their minority counterparts never did.” The court found that plaintiff had not offered any evidence of any particular individual who, at any particular time, was in a similar position to plaintiff’s, but was paid more. Accordingly, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff with costs.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2002-07-23 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: