When the agency that enforces the nation’s anti-discrimination laws ends up defending one of its own under Title VII, that is not just newsworthy. It is a lesson for every employer about how bias, inconsistency, and poor process can sneak into even the most compliance-minded workplaces.
TL;DR: A federal judge refused to dismiss a Title VII lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A longtime New Orleans manager says she was denied a promotion, mocked for her accent and national origin, and passed over for a less-experienced male colleague whom the decisionmaker says he “groomed and promoted.” She claimed discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin. The court held that a jury could find discrimination based on the totality of the record.
Inside the EEOC’s own promotion dispute
A longtime EEOC manager in the New Orleans Field Office sued the agency after being passed over for the permanent Field Director position. She had more than 25 years of service and had twice served as Acting Field Director. The decisionmaker instead selected a male colleague with a 30-year military background and less than two years of EEOC experience.
The manager alleged that her non-promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming discrimination based on her race, sex, and national origin.
The EEOC said it made a legitimate choice based on interview performance. Three of four panelists ranked both that candidate and another applicant ahead of the manager, while the fourth panelist scored the manager and the selected candidate equally. The court accepted those scores as a legitimate reason to move forward in the analysis.
But the record also contained evidence from which a jury could find pretext.
According to sworn statements, the decisionmaker mocked the manager’s accent with a stereotyped gesture and complained about her taking leave to visit family abroad. The agency reposted the job several times, including one version that switched to a DEU posting that gave preference to certain qualified veterans.
HR initially found the selected candidate not qualified, then discussed résumé “adjustments,” and later deemed him qualified after those revisions. The manager’s interview was scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Central time while she was in India caring for an ill parent, which was 11:00 p.m. local time.
There was also prior communication between the decisionmaker and a panelist who had known the chosen candidate for decades. The agency skipped a second interview, which it often conducts. The decisionmaker later wrote in a self-assessment that he had “groomed and promoted” the selectee, adding to concerns about impartiality.
The court was clear on two points. First, the manager did not establish pretext by showing she was clearly more qualified. Second, the other evidence described above is enough to let a jury decide whether discrimination motivated the decision. Summary judgment denied.
Why employers should care
Tight process beats good intentions. If one leader can tilt a competition by shaping postings, previewing panelists, or coaching résumés, your process invites pretext arguments.
Panel scoring is not a shield by itself. Scores help, but inconsistent practices, stray remarks, or procedural deviations can still create a triable issue.
Scheduling and access matter. Interviews or assessments that disadvantage someone on approved leave or in another time zone can become part of the story a jury hears.
Document consistently. Record neutral, job-related reasons at each step. Make sure postings, screening criteria, interview questions, and notes line up with the final choice.
Train the influencers. Decisionmakers and panelists should avoid comments about accent or national origin and steer clear of informal advocacy that undermines neutrality.
The bottom line
The irony gets clicks. The lesson keeps you out of court. Policies are easy. Fair, consistent execution is what wins cases.