Alaska Employment Law

Comparative qualifications are irrelevant if the plaintiff fails the prima facie test 

If an employer rejects the mostly highly qualified applicant, and that applicant is a member of the protected class, must the case go to the jury?  No, says the Alaska Supreme Court - not if the applicant has not met the other criteria for a prima facie case.

Clarito Villaflores applied for a position with Anchorage Water & Wastewater Utility, but was rejected for failure to meet the minimum qualifications.  He filed with the Human Rights Commission, alleging age (45) and race (Asian) discrimination.  The Commission rejected the charge on the merits (without hearing) and closed the case.  After reconsideration, Villaflores appealed to the Superior Court (Wolverton), which affirmed the Commission.

Villaflores did not dispute the Commission’s finding of no age or race discrimination, but argued that he was the most qualified candidate and therefore should have gotten the position.

The Court could have resolved the issue by holding that Villaflores’ complaint was not within the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission, or, perhaps, by holding that the Commission’s finding regarding minimum qualifications was not clearly erroneous. 

Instead, the Court affirmed on the basis that an employer’s rejection of the best qualified candidate, even if minority, does not raise an inference of discrimination unless the candidate met the other criteria for a prima facie case.  Here, Villaflores failed to meet the fourth element of the McDonnell Douglas test - that the employer hired an individual outside the same protected class.  The successful candidate for the utility job, it turns out, was both Asian and over 40, just like Villaflores.

Comment: Comparative qualifications do matter, however, if the plaintiff meets the prima facie case, as the 9th Circuit explained in Raad v. Fairbanks North Star Bor. Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003):

In this Circuit, we have held that a finding “that a Title VII plaintiff’s qualifications were clearly superior to the qualifications of the applicant selected is a proper basis for a finding of discrimination.” Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484, 1492 (9th Cir.1995). In Odima, we held that the plaintiff’s superior qualifications standing alone were enough to prove pretext and, on that basis, we affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment for the plaintiff following a bench trial. Id. Unlike the Tenth Circuit, see Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc., 186 F.3d 1301, 1319 (10th Cir.1999), we have never followed the Fifth Circuit in holding that the disparity in candidates’ qualifications “must be so apparent as to jump off the page and slap us in the face to support a finding of pretext.” Raad, slip op. at 43 (citing Odom v. Frank, 3 F.3d 839, 847 (5th Cir.1993)). This is especially true at the summary judgment stage, when we are compelled by the standard of review to infer from the pronounced difference between Raad’s and Roy’s qualifications that Raad has demonstrated a genuine factual dispute as to whether the District’s proffered reasons were pretextual.

Thus, superior qualifications create a fact dispute about pretext.

Villaflores v. Alaska State Commission For Human Rights, Op. No. 6201 (Alaska Nov. 16, 2007).

Villaflores was pro se.  William Milks of the Juneau AG’s Office represented the Commission.