In Dacier v. New York State Department of Labor, 2022 WL 16855210 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2022), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s failure to promote claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
While the plaintiff here was not successful, this decision is instructive on what a plaintiff must demonstrate to make out such a claim.
From the decision:
To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote under Title VII, a plaintiff ordinarily must demonstrate that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) she was rejected for the position; and (4) the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants having the plaintiff’s qualifications.” Estate of Hamilton v. City of New York, 627 F.3d 50, 55 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted) (quoting Petrosino v. Bell Atl., 385 F.3d 210, 226 (2d Cir. 2004)), superseded on other grounds in Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux North America, Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013). After a prima facie instance of discrimination has been identified, the burden shifts to the employer “to articulate some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973).
Here, Plaintiff satisfies the first three Estate of Hamilton factors. First, it is not contested that Plaintiff is a member of classes protected by Title VII—namely he is a male and a “non-Hispanic” individual. Dkt. No. 38 (“Plaintiff’s Deposition”) at 111, 113. Second, it is not disputed that Plaintiff applied and was at least minimally qualified for a job for which Defendant sought applicants. See Pl.’s Dep. at 111–112; Def.’s SMF ¶¶ 15–17. Third, it is also uncontested that Plaintiff was rejected for the 2016 position for which he applied. See Pl.’s Dep. at 111–112.; Def.’s SMF ¶¶ 21–23.
However, Plaintiff’s claim falters because it cannot satisfy Estate of Hamilton’s fourth factor. Although the position remained open after Plaintiff was rejected, Defendant did not seek someone with Plaintiff’s qualifications, but instead, sought candidates with superior qualifications. Def.’s S.J. Mem. at 10. Indeed, Plaintiff even concedes that he “could see why [the candidate who was selected] was hired,” Pl.’s Dep. at 173–74, and that “I’m not going to say she was (sic) less qualified than me … maybe she was more qualified.” Id. at 181. Moreover, Plaintiff also admitted that the successful candidate’s prior experience overseeing a similar program at issue here rendered her “more qualified in certain areas” for the 2016 position. Id. at 168.
Because Plaintiff does not allege facts that give rise to an inference of discrimination, he is unable to establish a prima facie case of failure to promote discrimination.
The court further held that, even if plaintiff established a prima facie case of failure to promote, the defendant proffered a non-discriminatory reason for rejecting plaintiff’s application – other candidates’ superior qualifications – which plaintiff failed to demonstrate was pretextual.