|
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a former instructor at the University of Puerto Rico ("UPR") who claimed that UPR had discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and/or national origin when it chose not to hire her for a tenure-track position. Johnson v. University of Puerto Rico, No. 12-1621 (1st Cir. Apr 18, 2013). In ruling for the employer, the First Circuit, which covers Puerto Rico, New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts, expressly found that the employee lacked the requisite advanced degree for the position, and that the employer's established educational requirements for the position were not pre-textual.
Christine Johnson was hired by UPR in 1996 as a graphics instructor in the Engineering Department. She had a master's degree in architecture. The instructor position did not require a Ph.D.; however, a Ph.D. was required to obtain a tenure-track position. In 2001, the Engineering Department was having difficulty finding tenure-track graphics professors with Ph.D.'s. As a result, the Chancellor granted the Engineering Department permission to hire tenure-track graphics professors without Ph.D.'s. UPR then hired three tenure-track graphics possessors without Ph.D.'s. Johnson did not apply for these positions.
In 2006, UPR amended its General Rules and Regulations to clarify that a candidate for a tenure-track position must have a Ph.D. In 2008, the Director of the Engineering Department issued an announcement for a tenure-track position of assistant professor. The announcement mistakenly stated that the position required a Ph.D. or a master's degree. Johnson, and four other individuals who lacked Ph.D.'s, applied for the position. The Personnel Committee recommended Johnson for the position. The Chancellor rejected the recommendation because Johnson did not have a Ph.D. and, thus, was not qualified for the position. The Director of the Engineering Department agreed the announcement was incorrect and withdrew the announcement. The Chancellor did, however, offer Johnson a leave of absence to pursue her Ph.D., and UPR offered to pay the costs of the Ph.D. program. Johnson did not accept the offer.
The tenure-track position was then reposted and ten candidates, including Johnson, applied for the positions. Six candidates had Ph.D.'s and two others were in Ph.D. programs. UPR ultimately hired three candidates — a female and two males (from Colombia and Spain) — all of whom had Ph.D.'s. After hiring these tenure-track positions, UPR no longer had a need for Johnson's services as an instructor and her temporary employment contract was not renewed. Johnson then filed a charge of discrimination asserting claims for gender and national origin discrimination under Title VII.
The First Circuit held that Johnson had failed to establish a prima facie case that she was qualified for the position that was announced in 2008. The tenure-track position required a Ph.D. and Johnson did not possess a Ph.D. Accordingly, it was undisputed that Johnson was not qualified.
The First Circuit then addressed whether the Ph.D. requirement was a legitimate, non-discriminatory employment requirement or merely a pretext for discrimination. The Court held that the Ph.D. requirement was a legitimate, non-discriminatory requirement based on undisputed evidence that requiring a Ph.D. for tenure-track positions promotes the teaching of up-to-date scholarship to students, provides prestige to UPR, helps UPR compete with other universities, helps UPR obtain research grants, and was required for UPR to be a Ph.D.-granting institution. The Court also rejected Johnson's contention that the Ph.D. requirement was not legitimate because it was "motivated purely by economic reasons," stating that "Courts may not sit as super personnel departments, assessing the merits — or even the rationality — of employers' nondiscriminatory business decisions." In short, an economic decision, if legitimate, may serve as a proper basis for a hiring decision. Finally, the Court noted that Johnson's pretext argument was belied by the fact that UPR had hired a female candidate and candidates from other countries, and by the fact that the Chancellor had offered Johnson a leave of absence to pursue her Ph.D. and to pay for the costs of the Ph.D. program. These undisputed facts were more than sufficient to defeat Johnson's pretext argument.
The Johnson case further emphasizes that an employee who accuses his/her employer or potential employer of discrimination in the hiring process bears the burden of establishing (1) that he or she is qualified for the position and (2) if not qualified, that the qualifications are a pretext for discrimination rather than a legitimate job requirement. Where an employer has a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for requiring an applicant to hold an advanced degree, then the employer can use these qualifications in making its hiring decisions without running afoul of Title VII.
.....
The Devine, Millimet & Branch Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Group offers this free Friday E-Mail Alert service to provide information on recent developments in labor, employment and employee benefits law. If you have any questions about this e-mail, or if you know of anyone else who may be interested in receiving these alerts, please send us an email at employment@devinemillimet.com.
This E-Alert is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to serve as legal advice or legal opinion. Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A. makes no representations that this is a complete or final description or procedure that would ensure legal compliance and does not intend that the reader should rely on it as such. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Devine Millimet attorney with whom you regularly work.
© Copyright 2013 Devine Millimet & Branch, Professional Association
|
