Imagine applying for the same promotion 31 times and never getting it. That happened to a state police lieutenant. He claimed discrimination, but the Fifth Circuit said the evidence did not add up.
TL;DR: A state police lieutenant said he was passed over for captain 31 times because he was white. But the court looked closely at his evidence and found no bias. The lawsuit focused on two promotions that went to officers with division-specific experience and stronger interviews. His other arguments, including statistics and a separate legal claim, also fell flat. For employers, the case is a reminder that consistent, job-related reasons for promotion decisions will usually carry the day in court.
Thirty-one tries, two key denials
The lieutenant applied 31 times for captain between 2008 and 2021. Of the first 30 openings, 22 went to white candidates and 8 to non-white candidates.
But his lawsuit boiled down to two denials in 2021. Both promotions went to candidates who had already worked in the divisions they would go on to lead. He had not.
The court focused on process, not résumé battles
Here’s how the system worked: a written exam got you into the pool, but interviews and leadership judgment decided who advanced. The final call rested with the Superintendent, who testified that the lieutenant “was not a good interviewer.”
The lieutenant argued that his higher test scores, longer tenure, and more awards proved he was more qualified. He even insisted that “common sense” says better test performance should equal better qualifications. But the court treated that as a challenge to the hiring process itself, not evidence of discrimination. Courts do not rewrite an employer’s process if it is applied consistently and for legitimate business reasons.
He also leaned heavily on his own view that he was a stronger communicator and better fit than the candidates chosen. Courts generally find an employee’s self-assessment immaterial. They will not substitute their own judgment for the employer’s in deciding what kinds of experience or qualities are most valuable for a role. Unless the standards are applied inconsistently or are so irrational that they suggest a cover-up, courts will defer to the employer’s judgment. In other words, courts do not serve as “super personnel departments.”
Other arguments fell flat
The lieutenant did not stop at “I was more qualified.” He also tried to prove discrimination with statistics and alternative legal theories. None worked.
- Statistics: His numbers were discounted because they excluded later promotions, ignored earlier years, and lumped together different candidate pools.
- Mixed motives: He claimed race was one factor among others. The court found no evidence race played any role.
- Separate legal claim: His § 1981 claim was dismissed as too late. Promotion to captain would have created a “new and distinct” employment relationship, which meant a one-year filing deadline applied.
Four lessons for employers
- Keep the receipts. Document why you chose someone: relevant experience, interview performance, recommendations. That record can be your best defense.
- Consistency is key. Apply the same process across candidates. If interviews and job-specific experience matter most, use that measure every time.
- Employees need more than their say-so. Courts will not take “I was more qualified” at face value. Employees must present real evidence that bias, not legitimate reasons, drove the decision.
- Courts are not HR departments. Judges will not second-guess which traits matter most for a promotion if the employer’s process is consistent and not a cover for discrimination.
The bottom line
Feeling overlooked is not the same as proving discrimination. Courts will stand behind employers who make consistent, well-documented, job-related decisions.