The employer who wanted to “bring color” into the workplace; brought lot$a green to the plaintiff instead

I’m talking about a $620,000 jury verdict and nearly $165,000 in attorney’s fees.

Let’s discuss reverse-race discrimination after the jump…

Let’s get one thing clear. Anyone can be a victim of discrimination. And when it comes to race, we’re talking black, white, brown, whatever.

Case in point, in Boneberger v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Mr. Boneberger, who is white, claimed reverse-race discrimination because his employer failed to transfer him to the position of Assistant Director of the St. Louis Police Academy.

At trial, Boneberger testified that that Academy Director informed him that he shouldn’t bother applying for the job because it was going to a black female. After Boneberger’s employer selected a black female for the position, Boneberger’s supervisor told him that the selection was to “bring color down to the Academy.”

The jury also heard facts indicating that Boneberger had more relevant experience and seniority than the black female selected for the position.

Boom! The jury finds in favor of Boneberger and, in doing so, also awarded punitive damages.

Direct evidence of reverse-race discrimination against an “unusual employer.”

In seeking a new trial, the employer argued that Mr. Boneberger was required to present something more than evidence that he was discriminated against because of his race; namely, “that background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Now, if I could paraphrase the Court’s response to that argument, it would be something like, “Well, for f*ck’s sake!” In reality, however, it went like this:

In this case, plaintiff presented direct evidence of discrimination, specifically, testimony indicating that the decision-makers had determined, in advance, that a white male would not be hired for the position. This evidence shows “a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated” the decision….In most cases, like in this one, the direct evidence is evidence that the defendant is just such an “unusual employer.”

Employment decisions should be “protected-class” blind.

As we’ve discussed many times on this blog, most recently here, commenting about race, religion, age, color, national origin, etc., in the workplace is dumb. Instead, when it comes to hiring/promotion/firing decisions, employers who base them on — oh, what’s the word — qualifications, generally fare best.