Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
How an Employer Survived a Discrimination Claim After Violating Its Own Hiring Policies
The city’s civil-service commission told it to follow its own hiring policies. It didn’t. It still won.
TL;DR: A Chinese-born engineer with a Ph.D. was passed over twice for a superintendent role in favor of a younger, white candidate without a college degree. The city rewrote its job requirements mid-process after its own civil-service commission found a policy violation. The Tenth Circuit still affirmed summary judgment for the employer, because the engineer couldn’t show the city’s stated reason (wanting someone with leadership experience) was unworthy of belief.
A Ph.D., a Decade on the Job, and Still Not Hired
The plaintiff held a Ph.D. in engineering, had worked for Tulsa’s water department for over a decade, and had applied repeatedly for managerial roles. Every time, the city picked a white candidate instead.
In June 2021, he applied to be superintendent of the A.B. Jewell plant. A panel asked all three candidates the same questions under a uniform matrix. Two of three panelists ranked the plaintiff third. The hiring manager selected the candidate with the best mix of technical knowledge and leadership experience. The court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
When the Civil-Service Commission Said “Go Back and Follow Your Policies”
The plaintiff complained that neither of the other two candidates met the job’s written education requirement: a bachelor’s degree in engineering technology, environmental or biological sciences, or a related field. Neither had a degree. The city’s civil-service commission agreed and told the city to “go back and follow” its policies.
The city rewrote the job description. It removed the degree requirement and substituted a formula: 120 hours of college credit, or 60 hours plus seven years of experience. The selected candidate had 66 credit hours and eight years. The other applicant had exactly 60 and seven. Both now qualified. The city reposted, ran a new process, and hired the same candidate again.
Two senior water-department managers testified in depositions that removing the degree requirement was “improper” and that changing requirements to suit a desired candidate “was not appropriate.”
Why the Employer Won Anyway
The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment. An employer’s explanation is pretextual only if it is “so incoherent, weak, inconsistent, or contradictory” that a jury could find it “unworthy of belief.” The court asks whether the decisionmaker honestly believed her stated reasons, not whether the decision was “wise, fair or correct.”
The plaintiff’s three pretext theories all failed.
On procedures: the city had a long-standing custom of substituting experience for education, and the plaintiff never contradicted it. And unlike fact patterns where employers lose, the city restarted the entire process rather than retroactively adjusting criteria around a pick already made.
On qualifications: the plaintiff had better technical credentials, but the city wanted technical knowledge and leadership experience. The selected candidate had both. The plaintiff, by his own account, had supervised a few interns, a temporary employee, and a quiz-bowl team, and applied for management roles partly to acquire leadership experience. Courts won’t let a plaintiff highlight one qualification category while ignoring the one where they come up short.
What This Case Actually Teaches
The city won with two of its own managers on record calling the process “improper.” Don’t take that as a playbook.
Keep your written policies consistent with your actual practice. If you routinely substitute experience for education, say so in writing. The gap between written policy and real-world custom is what created this litigation.
Document your hiring criteria before the search starts. Leadership experience was the city’s consistent, articulated reason from day one. That single fact carried more weight here than anything else.
If you need to rewrite job requirements after a complaint, restart the entire process cleanly. New posting, new panel, new matrix. Retroactively adjusting criteria around a candidate already chosen is how employers lose these cases.
Audit your job postings against how you actually hire. Degree requirements you routinely waive are evidence waiting to be used against you.
Two managers testified that what the city did was improper. The court agreed it was sloppy. Neither of those things made it discriminatory.