An employer’s statements about a successful job candidate’s “minority status, the American Dream, and the value of diversity” were not enough to show that it discriminated against an unsuccessful white candidate, ruled a New Jersey federal court recently.
The case involved two police officers who were interviewing to become the chief of police. One of them, the plaintiff, was a white man. He alleged that the employer wrongfully discriminated against him when they selected a Palestinian Muslim instead of him.
According to the court’s opinion, both men were well qualified, having worked for the employer for several years. As part of the interview process, the successful candidate discussed his strengths, including his social media involvement, tenure as the public information officer, community orientation, experience running the Youth Academy, and desire to form a closer relationship between the local community and the police department. This focus on community interaction and outreach appealed to the employer. Conversely, although the plaintiff was asked similar questions during his interview, the employer asserted that he did not discuss community interaction.
Following the interviews, most councilmembers voted for the Muslim/Palestinian candidate for Chief of Police.
The employer denied that race was a stated or implied factor in the decision not to promote the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff relied on the meeting minutes to argue otherwise. Indeed, some councilmembers commented on the value of diversity, the diversity of the town, and the American Dream. One councilmember noted that the other candidate was better suited for the job because he was more “energetic” and “he’s a minority.”
Yet, the plaintiff did not succeed in his discrimination claim.
In New Jersey, in cases involving reverse race discrimination, an employee must demonstrate “he has been victimized by an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority,” which is a standard the Supreme Court will reevaluate this term.
But, in this case, the comments about minority status and the value of diversity were not enough to imply that discrimination tainted the promotion. The court highlighted that “if an employer’s statements that he planned to combat discrimination and to pursue affirmative action goals were held to be an adequate basis for a finding of discrimination against a white employee, anti-discrimination laws would be turned on their head and transformed into a device for preservation of the racial status quo in the workforce.”
Here, the court concluded that the evidence showed the successful candidate’s strengths, including his experience, history of community engagement, and outreach, won him the job.
This decision is sure to be appealed, and it would not shock me if the Third Circuit reversed it, depending on how the Supreme Court sets the standard in so-called reverse race discrimination cases.