11th Circuit Clarifies Burden in Failure-to-Promote Cases

In a case called Lee v. GTE Florida, Inc., a court said that in order to prove that a company didn’t promote someone for unfair reasons, the person who wasn’t promoted has to show that they were clearly more qualified than the person who was promoted. In this case, Lee worked at GTE for a long time and applied for a new job, but didn’t get it. She sued, but the court said she didn’t prove she was clearly better qualified for the job. So, the company was allowed to make its own decision about who to promote. Lee applied for a manager job at GTE but was not chosen. She claimed it was because of her age and gender. A trial was held, and the jury found GTE not guilty of ageism, but guilty of sexism and awarded Lee money. GTE appealed, and the appeals court reversed the decision, meaning GTE did not have to pay Lee. The 11th Circuit Court held that in order to prove a claim of discriminatory failure to promote, a plaintiff must show that they were substantially more qualified than the candidate who was chosen for the promotion, and that the selection was based on the candidate’s sex. This means they must show a clear and significant difference in qualifications. Other courts have used this standard as well, making it harder for plaintiffs to prove their case. This was seen in cases where firefighters claimed they were passed over for promotion due to race, but failed to show a strong enough difference in qualifications to prove discrimination. In another case, a school employee claimed he was terminated due to his race, but the court found that the employer had legitimate reasons for the termination and the employee did not prove that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination. The court stated that an employer’s decision must be the result of a discriminatory motive, not just a mistake. A police officer sued the city for age and sex discrimination because she wasn’t kept on the force or promoted. She claimed she was more qualified than the people who got the jobs. But the city said they had other reasons for not keeping her, like her threat to kill someone and performance issues. The court said the threat was a good enough reason to let her go. It also said just being more qualified than someone else isn’t enough proof of discrimination. The court also said it won’t question the city’s decisions unless they seem really obviously biased. Gregory A. Hearing and Michael B. Stein are lawyers who specialize in labor and employment law. They work for a firm called Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez. Gregory is certified in labor and employment law by The Florida Bar.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/11th-circuit-clarifies-burden-in-failure-to-promote-cases/