11th Circuit clarifies burden in failure-to-promote cases.

• Author: Hearing, Gregory A.
• Position: Federal appeals court

On September 13, 2000, in the case of Lee v. GTE Florida, Inc., 226 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1486 (2001), the 11th Circuit addressed and clarified the burden of proof in failure-to-promote cases. The court affirmed that an employer has the right to determine which of its employees are the most qualified for promotions. In short, the court acknowledged that employers have the right to exercise their own business judgment. Specifically, the court held that a plaintiffs showing that a less qualified employee was promoted over the plaintiff will not satisfy the requirements of establishing pretextual motive. In a failure-to-promote case, the court. will require a high level of proof showing that a plaintiff is "substantially more qualified" or "clearly more qualified" in order to establish pretext. The disparity between the qualifications of the employees considered for promotion must be so great that the disparity would be obvious to every member of a jury.

Plaintiff Lee was hired by GTE in 1970 and started as a telephone operator in Tampa. Lee was eventually promoted to the position of senior engineer in GTE's real estate department. Her position was eliminated on November 6, 1994, as a result of a reduction in force and a reorganization of GTE's real estate department. Lee and the six other employees in the organization holding the same position were allowed to apply for new positions that were created as a result of the reorganization. One of the new positions created was manager-real estate services. Lee applied for this position.

Eligible employees for the manager-real estate services position could fill out a questionnaire addressing their experience and qualifications. On the questionnaire, the qualifications were listed in descending order of importance as follows: 1) managerial experience; 2) strategic planning experience; 3) a bachelor's degree in business or engineering; and 4) commercial real estate experience. Lee claimed to meet all of the qualifications for the position. Lee was not chosen for the position. Instead, GTE selected an applicant who had a strong managerial background, significant experience in strategic planning, and a bachelor's degree in engineering, in addition to other training. While Lee had more experience in commercial real estate than the successful applicant, her qualifications in the other areas were lacking. For instance, Lee had never served as a manager, was not as qualified with regard to strategic planning, and only attained a high school degree.

After learning she would not be selected to the new position, Lee complained to GTE's employee relations department. GTE commenced an investigation which determined that there was no discrimination in the selection process. As part of the investigatory process, the selecting manager drafted a letter stating why the successful applicant was selected over Lee. The selecting manager stated that he felt Lee's background, education, and experience were not as...