Casper Eugene Harding v. Vincent Gray
1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 30946, 9 F.3d 150, 63 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,688 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a Title VII reverse discrimination claim, a non-minority plaintiff can establish the 'background circumstances' necessary for a prima facie case by showing that their qualifications were superior to those of the selected minority candidate.
Facts:
- Casper E. Harding, a white man, worked as a carpenter leader at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital.
- In 1988, a vacancy for the Carpentry/Upholstery Shop Foreman position was announced, with the 'ability to supervise' being a key requirement.
- Harding applied for the position along with three other candidates, including Acquanetta Haywood-Brown, a black woman who held a supervisory position as Upholstery Shop Foreman.
- A Qualifications Review Panel rated both Harding and Haywood-Brown as 'highly qualified,' with Haywood-Brown scoring 22 out of 24 points and Harding scoring 20 out of 24.
- The selecting official, Vladimir Roubachewsky, a white man, interviewed the top candidates.
- Roubachewsky selected Haywood-Brown for the promotion, and his decision was approved by his supervisor, who was also a white man.
Procedural Posture:
- Casper E. Harding filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging his employer denied him a promotion due to his race.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court (a court of first instance) granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the lawsuit.
- The district court ruled that Harding had failed to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination because he did not allege sufficient 'background circumstances' pointing to discrimination.
- Harding, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-minority plaintiff's allegation of superior qualifications, compared to the selected minority candidate, constitute sufficient 'background circumstances' to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination under Title VII?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Mikva
Yes. An allegation of superior qualifications, if supported by the facts, can constitute sufficient background circumstances to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination. The 'background circumstances' requirement for non-minority plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases is not an additional hurdle but rather a substitute for the element of minority status in a traditional discrimination claim. This requirement can be met by showing either (1) evidence that the employer has an inclination to discriminate against the majority, or (2) evidence that something is 'fishy' about the facts of the case. An employer's decision to promote a less-qualified minority applicant over a more-qualified non-minority applicant is an irrational act that raises an inference of a discriminatory motive, thereby satisfying the 'fishy' circumstances prong and establishing a prima facie case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the means by which a non-minority plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination. It establishes that plaintiffs do not need to present broad, external evidence of an employer's discriminatory inclination against the majority, such as an affirmative action plan or statistical imbalances. Instead, the specific facts of the employment decision itself—namely, a clear disparity in qualifications—can be sufficient to create an inference of discrimination and shift the burden of production to the employer. This holding lowers the initial barrier for reverse discrimination plaintiffs and focuses the inquiry on the relative merits of the candidates involved in the specific dispute.
