Recruitment and selection law for local government employers - Page 65 |
Previous | 65 of 464 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Chapter 2: Discrimination Law in the Recruitment and Selection Context | 49
The federal district court granted summary judgment to Arlington County, finding that Wesley had failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination in that she had failed to show that she was qualified for the position of captain. Wesley argued that her placement on the certified list of those eligible for promotion to captain satisfied her burden of showing that she was qualified for promotion for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. The county argued and the court agreed that certification to the eligibility list was merely a preliminary step and that to be truly qualified the applicant had to have considerable experience in the fire department, considerable knowledge of fire department practices, interpersonal skills, and problem-solving skills.37 But even if Wesley had made a prima facie case, the court found, she had failed to show that the county’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not promoting her—that those promoted had more experience and better skills and that senior fire officers found fault with her performance—were false.38
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court and reversed the grant of summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit noted that some of the additional factors cited by the county as necessary for “true” qualification were duplicative of the threshold requirements for taking the captain’s exam:“Considerable experience,” for example, is reflected in the minimum years of service required to sit for the test, while “considerable knowledge” and “problem solving skills” are indicated by an applicant’s success on the written and assessment center portions of the promotional process. “Interpersonal skills” is a vague and subjective criterion, perhaps best measured by an applicant’s standing in the eyes of her peers, supervisors and subordinates; the record includes multiple instances of Wesley’s superiors praising her interactions with both coworkers and the public.39In addition to her success in the testing stages, Wesley gained generally positive performance reviews. She also served as an acting captain on
37. See Wesley, 354 F. App’x at 779.
38. See Wesley, 354 F. App’x at 778, 780–81.
39. See Wesley, 354 F. App’x at 779.
Object Description
Description
| Title | Recruitment and selection law for local government employers - Page 65 |
| Full Text | Chapter 2: Discrimination Law in the Recruitment and Selection Context | 49 The federal district court granted summary judgment to Arlington County, finding that Wesley had failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination in that she had failed to show that she was qualified for the position of captain. Wesley argued that her placement on the certified list of those eligible for promotion to captain satisfied her burden of showing that she was qualified for promotion for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. The county argued and the court agreed that certification to the eligibility list was merely a preliminary step and that to be truly qualified the applicant had to have considerable experience in the fire department, considerable knowledge of fire department practices, interpersonal skills, and problem-solving skills.37 But even if Wesley had made a prima facie case, the court found, she had failed to show that the county’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not promoting her—that those promoted had more experience and better skills and that senior fire officers found fault with her performance—were false.38 On appeal, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court and reversed the grant of summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit noted that some of the additional factors cited by the county as necessary for “true” qualification were duplicative of the threshold requirements for taking the captain’s exam:“Considerable experience,” for example, is reflected in the minimum years of service required to sit for the test, while “considerable knowledge” and “problem solving skills” are indicated by an applicant’s success on the written and assessment center portions of the promotional process. “Interpersonal skills” is a vague and subjective criterion, perhaps best measured by an applicant’s standing in the eyes of her peers, supervisors and subordinates; the record includes multiple instances of Wesley’s superiors praising her interactions with both coworkers and the public.39In addition to her success in the testing stages, Wesley gained generally positive performance reviews. She also served as an acting captain on 37. See Wesley, 354 F. App’x at 779. 38. See Wesley, 354 F. App’x at 778, 780–81. 39. See Wesley, 354 F. App’x at 779. |
