Hiring of Arguably Less Qualified Applicant Not Enough to Prove Discrimination
In Reeves v. MV Transportation, the California Court of Appeals considered whether an employer's hiring of a 40 year old attorney constituted age discrimination against an unsuccessful 56 year old applicant. The court considered whether hiring someone with arguably inferior qualifications, combined with the Company's failure to retain and produce the candidate applications, was sufficient to defeat the employer's motion for summary judgment.
Mr. Reeves, a 56 year old lawyer, applied along with approximately 60 other applicants for a position as a staff attorney with the defendant Company. The Company chose to hire a 40 year old applicant who possessed what the Company found to be superior qualifications (and which Mr. Reeves believed to be inferior qualifications). Mr. Reeves was not interviewed. Unfortunately for the Company, the employment applications of the candidates could not be located, which Mr. Reeves argued presented a triable issue of fact regarding his rejection. The court found that the Company had presented a legitimate business reason for his rejection (the other applicant was more qualified), so the burden shifted to Mr. Reeves to establish that the Company's reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. Mr. Reeves argued, in part, that (1) he had superior qualifications, and (2) the Company's inability to produce the applications received constituted sufficient pretext to defeat summary judgment.
Courts generally defer to the legitimate business decisions of employers in determining which applicant is best qualified for the job. Here, as in most instances, some candidates are stronger in some areas than others. In this case, Mr. Reeves was found to have superior qualifications in some areas, but the court also found the successful applicant possessed other advantages. In concluding Mr. Reeves had failed to establish that the Company's reasons were pretextual, it found that his "qualifications cannot be reasonably viewed as 'vastly superior'….[and] were not 'so superior to those of the person selected…as the make the selection of that person unreasonable…." As for the Company's failure to produce the applications, the court found that this failure alone cannot create an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment where, as here, there is not substantial evidence of pretext on the merits.
On balance, this case provides yet another in a long line of favorable California decisions upholding the authority of California employers to select who they deem to be the most qualified applicant from the available pool for an open position. That said, California employers are well advised to carefully weigh and evaluate the inevitably competing qualifications of the candidates and carefully document the reasons for the successful applicant's selection. Further, California employers should ensure they are complying with record retention requirements (here, 2 years for employment applications under Cal. Gov't Code Section 12946).