Alaska Employment Law

The Alaska State Human Rights Commission has rejected the race claim of an African-American applicant for a promotion to trainmaster.  Harry Ross argued that he was the most highly qualified applicant, based in large part on his 36 years of service with the Railroad.  The Railroad contended that Ross was disengaged during his interview, and confirmed that “it was not interested in ensuring racial diversity among the successful candidates.  Rather, they wanted the best candidate for the job.” 

The Railroad filled all six trainmaster vacancies with Caucasian applicants with fewer years of seniority than Ross.  The matter went for hearing before the Commission on remand from the Superior Court (judge unidentified), who held that the Commission had erred in not fully investigating Ross’s response to the Railroad’s allegedly legitimate reasons for not promoting him.  The Superior Court judge held that the Commission must hold a hearing where the complainant has made out a prima facie case and presented objective evidence that create a fact dispute about the employer’s stated reasons.  

The Commission adopted ALJ Rebecca Pauli’s recommended decision that held as follows:

1) the use of the nickname “Black Magic” for Ross, by a former supervisor who was a member of the ARRC interview panel, was racial but not derogatory, because a) it referred to Ross’ talent in expediting yard operations; and b) the supervisor stopped using it after Ross objected.

2) statistical evidence of an employer’s hiring practice “is less probative in [disparate treatment] cases because statistical evidence has little bearing on the specific intentions of the employer in making particular hiring decisions.”

3) the absence of African-Americans in ARRC Transportation Department management was not persuasive evidence of bias in the non-selection of Ross because 4 of the 5 interview panel members were not from the Transportation Department and the panel’s rejection of Ross was unanimous.

4) “Mr. Ross’s complaint that the ARRC failed to use objective criteria in its hiring decision is a nonstarter.  He has presented no legal authority for his proposition that use of subjective criteria in a promotion decision is improper or ipso facto discriminatory.” 

5) the imperfections in the hiring process (e.g., only 1 of the 5 interviewers kept notes) ”do not equate to discriminatory motive,” though they “make the hiring process easier to attack.” 

6) an interviewer who knows of an applicant’s talents has no duty to share that knowledge with other decisionmakers if the applicant fails to do so.

The opinion notes that, during the internal ARRC conciliation process, the Railroad offered Ross a trainmaster position, which Ross rejected because he didn’t want to work for a discriminatory and because he felt he’d be subject to heightened scrutiny.

Haley v. Alaska Railroad Corporation, OAH No. 08-0230-HRC (Mar. 3, 2010)

Staff Attorney Caitlin Shortell presented for the Commission; Bill Mede of Turner & Mede represented the Railroad.