In this action the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reviewed the Petitioner’s hiring discrimination claim in accordance with the McDonnell Douglas* "burden-shifting" inquiry protocols.
Petitioner had appealed the decision and order of the United States District Court dismissing his claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., [ADA] and granting summary judgment in favor of School District and its Board of Education [School District]. The Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and determined that the lower properly concluded that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that School District was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Petitioner had appealed the decision and order of the United States District Court dismissing his claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., [ADA] and granting summary judgment in favor of School District and its Board of Education [School District]. The Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision de novo and determined that the lower properly concluded that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that School District was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Petitioner, a former School District employee, had brought two causes of action against the School District under the ADA, alleging (1) employment discrimination based on his prior illness; and (2) employment discrimination based on a perceived disability.
Assuming that Petitioner had met his minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination, the court indicated that the burden of proof shifted to the School District to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its hiring decisions. The court found that School District had met its burden by demonstrating its long-standing practice of preferring current employees when selecting candidates for open positions.
The burden of going forward then shifted back to the Petitioner to demonstrate that the School District’s explanation was mere pretext “unworthy of consideration” or persuade the court that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated School District's decision.
Assuming that Petitioner had met his minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination, the court indicated that the burden of proof shifted to the School District to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its hiring decisions. The court found that School District had met its burden by demonstrating its long-standing practice of preferring current employees when selecting candidates for open positions.
The burden of going forward then shifted back to the Petitioner to demonstrate that the School District’s explanation was mere pretext “unworthy of consideration” or persuade the court that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated School District's decision.
The court said that there was no dispute that due to his many years of experience Petitioner was qualified for the positions. Here, however, the School District’s hiring policy was viewed as placing greater value on promoting and transferring current employees within the School District rather than simply considering "experience."
As Petitioner conceded that the School District’s policy was applied consistently and failed to show that any outside applicant, disabled or otherwise, was hired instead of him, the Circuit Court concluded that the School District documented a nondiscriminatory motive for not offering Petitioner reemployment.
As Petitioner conceded that the School District’s policy was applied consistently and failed to show that any outside applicant, disabled or otherwise, was hired instead of him, the Circuit Court concluded that the School District documented a nondiscriminatory motive for not offering Petitioner reemployment.
Petitioner also contended that School District was “biased” against him because he had filed a workers’ compensation claim during the course of his employment and, in addition, alleged that his direct supervisor encouraged him to retire.
The court said that the “record is barren of any evidence" that School District failed to hire him because he filed a workers’ compensation claim at some point in time before he retired. Accordingly the Circuit Court opined that Petitioner “failed to show a causal connection between his application for workers’ compensation benefits and the School District’s hiring decision.**
The court said that the “record is barren of any evidence" that School District failed to hire him because he filed a workers’ compensation claim at some point in time before he retired. Accordingly the Circuit Court opined that Petitioner “failed to show a causal connection between his application for workers’ compensation benefits and the School District’s hiring decision.**
Addressing an issue Petitioner raised for the first time on appeal -- School District had breached its contractual duties by failing to hold his position open while he recovered from his disability -- the Circuit Court explained that, subject to certain exceptions not here relevant, it is a “well-established general rule is that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.” ***
Insofar as Petitioner’s claims that School District’s failure to hold his position open while he was recovering from his disability constituted a breach of contract, the court noted “a timing issue,” explaining that under New York law a breach of contract action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Citing §3813(2–b) of New York State’s Education Law, the Circuit Court pointed out that a lawsuit against a Board of Education is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. As a cause of action for breach of contract accrues and the statute of limitations commences when the contract is breached and Petitioner did not file suit within one year of the alleged breach, the Circuit Court opined that his breach of contract claim was untimely.
* McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792.
** However, said the court, were it to have departed from this rule, such newly raised claims were either time-barred or lacking in merit.
** However, said the court, were it to have departed from this rule, such newly raised claims were either time-barred or lacking in merit.
*** Taking the allegation as true, the court noted that this conversation took place two years before the alleged failure to hire and opined that “The lack of temporal proximity, combined with the isolated nature of the comment, does not give rise to an inference of discrimination."
The decision is posted on the Internet at: