Ernestine KING, Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Appellee
35 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,588, 738 F.2d 255, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21020 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII, when an employer subjects a job applicant to a different interview process based on a protected characteristic like sex, the employer must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the differential treatment in the process itself. Failure to explain this difference leaves the presumption of unlawful discrimination unrebutted, regardless of other reasons offered for the ultimate hiring decision.
Facts:
- Ernestine King was a former probationary kitchen helper for Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) who was terminated during a reduction-in-force but classified as 'eligible for rehire.'
- In May 1976, King applied to be rehired in TWA's dining and commissary department.
- During a November 1976 interview, department manager U.S. Powell asked King questions about her prior pregnancy, marital status, relationship with another TWA employee, the number and legitimacy of her children, her childcare arrangements, and her future childbearing plans.
- It was TWA's official company policy not to ask job applicants these types of questions during interviews.
- Following the interview, Powell told King there were no openings, but TWA hired ten or eleven other individuals for the kitchen helper position that same month.
- The position of kitchen helper was an entry-level job that required little or no training or experience.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernestine King filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which found reasonable cause to believe TWA engaged in sex discrimination and issued a right-to-sue letter.
- King filed a Title VII action against TWA in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (a federal trial court).
- The district court found that King established a prima facie case of disparate treatment but accepted TWA's articulated non-discriminatory reasons as legitimate and not pretextual.
- The district court entered judgment in favor of TWA.
- King, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 an employer violate Title VII by subjecting a female job applicant to an interview with questions about pregnancy, childbearing, and childcare that are not asked of other applicants, and then failing to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for this differential treatment in the interview process?
Opinions:
Majority - McMillian, J.
Yes, an employer violates Title VII by subjecting a female job applicant to a discriminatory interview process and failing to provide a legitimate reason for that specific differential treatment. The district court erred by focusing on TWA's articulated reasons for the ultimate decision not to hire King (an unfavorable recommendation, absences, and a close relationship with another employee) instead of the undisputed fact that she was treated differently during the interview process itself. TWA’s reasons for not hiring King do not explain why her interview was different from those of other applicants or why she was asked questions that violated company policy. Because TWA offered no reason to explain why King's interview was different, it failed to rebut the presumption of unlawful discrimination established by King's prima facie case. The discrimination occurred in the process, and liability attaches there, separate from the ultimate hiring outcome.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework by establishing that discrimination in the hiring process is independently actionable, not just the final hiring decision. It prevents employers from using a biased interview to screen out applicants from protected classes and then inventing seemingly legitimate, post-hoc justifications for the ultimate decision not to hire. The ruling emphasizes that any differential treatment at any stage of the employment process must be explained by a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. This precedent strengthens protections for job applicants by ensuring the entire hiring process is scrutinized for discriminatory practices.
