I. The Facts
An African-American friend was working in an American non-governmental organization focused on providing legal assistance legal aid lawyers in China through trainings, cultural exchanges, and research. His organization was predominantly staffed by Asian-Americans/Europeans although, most of the middle and senior management position were occupied by white Americans. After two years of work, mainly in a field office in central China, a position as an assistant director opened up in the headquarters in Beijing. After reading the description; which was stated that it was looking for an American lawyer, with criminal defense experience, experience in teaching and/or training lawyers, and experience working and living in China; he decided to apply for the job. He not only had the requisite experience having been a criminal lawyer in the US for several years, as well as the other experience which he had gained will working in the field office; but he also had a degree in China Studies and spoke the language fluently. Unfortunately, after going through initial application round, which including interviews with his supervisors as well the founder of the organization, all people that he had worked with and had previously spoke will of his work; he was told that another more qualified person was chosen for the job. While the candidate that was chosen, did have about a year’s more experience as a criminal defender; he was no better than the friend in any other category. He had never been to China, never led a training, and did not speak the language. However he was white and he had graduated from Yale Law School.
II. The Elements of the Case
First, the plaintiff was a member of a protected class (EEOC, n.d.). Here the protected class is discriminatory acts based on one’s race. The plaintiff was the only African-American working for an organization with a predominantly Asian workforce and leadership composed entirely, except for the founder, of white Americans (Settles et al., 2010). Second, the plaintiff was not only qualified for the position he was over qualified at least in terms of his language ability, educational experience and experience/understanding of what the organization was trying to accomplish. Third, the plaintiff was not hired for the position although he was the only internal candidate that applied for the position. Fourth, the candidate that was selected was selected was outside of the protected class. He was a white American that was offered a position in a management/leadership group that was, as mentioned, has no minorities within it.
III. Justification for the Decision
According to the plaintiff, the candidate that was eventually chosen was better qualified for the position. They emphasized that the position would be involved to a large degree with working with partners to increase donations and resources for the organization for use in its programs.
IV. Justification as a Pretext?
V. Conclusion
Based on the facts of the case, it is clear that the discrimination that occurred was indeed unlawful. While it is not clear whether the plaintiff still wants the position, but one remedy would be to force the organization to hire the plaintiff for the position. Another, perhaps more suitable remedy, would be payment of a reward from the organization for attorney’s fees and a public acknowledgement of their discriminatory behavior, a program established with the organization to see that no further discriminatory practice occur, and an apology to the plaintiff.
References
Settles, I.H., Buchanan, N.T. & Yap, S.C.Y. (2010). Racial discrimination in the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/~yapstevi/Stevie_C._Y._Yap_-_Michigan_State_University/Preprints_and_Reprints_files/Settles%20Buchanan%20Yap_Racial%20Discrimination%20in%20theWorkplace.pdf
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (n.d.) Race-Color discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm
