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  As well, McKay's resume was apparently outdated as his most recent job listing was from 1973.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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more