Skip to main content

Think You Are the Most Qualified Candidate? That Might Get You In the Door...But Getting An Interview Is Not Guaranteed


McKay v. Board of Trustees of Community College - United States District Court, District of Connecticut


Facts:  Robert McKay ("McKay") applied for a "Career Specialist" position at Quinebaug Valley Community College but was not selected for an interview.  Instead, several male and female candidates were chosen to interview.  McKay subsequently filed suit and alleged that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his gender.  The Board of Trustees of Community Colleges ("the Board"), the defendant in this case, filed a motion for summary judgment.

Holding:  The District Court recognized that for McKay to prevail (or at least survive summary judgment), he would have to establish:  1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for the job that he applied; 3) he was denied the job; and 4) the denial occurred under circumstances taht give rise to an inference of invidious discrimination.  If McKay can establish those four factors, the burden then shifts to the Board to demonstrate a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision not to interview him.  Assuming that occurs, McKay must then establish evidence sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to find that the Board's proffered reason is pretext for intentional discrimination.

The Court got straight to the point and noted that assuming McKay could meet his initial burden, the Board had established a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to not interview him for the position.  McKay had failed to answer questions on his employment application in regard to whether he had been involuntarily terminated within the past 10 years and whether he had been convicted of a criminal offense.  (No other applicants had failed to answer these questions.)  As well, McKay's resume was apparently outdated as his most recent job listing was from 1973.  In addition, McKay failed to provide evidence of his information technology skills nor did he discuss how his background met the minimum qualifications for the job.

While McKay argued he was more qualified than the women that the Board chose to hire, the Court pointed out that there is no legal requirement that the most qualified candidate be hired.

Judgment:  The District Court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment and held that McKay could not establish that he had been discriminated against when he did not receive an invitation to interview for an open position, as his belief that he was "more qualified" than the applicants chosen had no legal merit.

The Takeaway:  Interesting case, huh?  Although it is quite short with limited facts, I think it provides a good reminder:  Just because an applicant believes they are the most qualified candidate does not necessarily mean a discrimination claim arises when that applicant does not get hired (or interviewed).  As always, every jurisdiction is different...but as this District Court in Connecticut pointed out, the belief that a qualified individual is "entitled" to an interview does not mean liability exists when the potential employer declines to interview them.  As well, this case pointed out that McKay had several shortcomings in the lead up to a potential interview (namely the lack of recent job experience, failing to respond to questions on the application, not having relevant experience in IT, etc.) that also doomed his claim.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Eginton

Date:  September 28, 2017

Opinion:  https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0851-111

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more