Court rules against former employee

• Date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30627
• Published date: 01 July 2019

NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR JULY 2019

10 © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Employment Law

Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review

employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.

Racial discrimination

Court rules against former employee

The plaintiff was a black man who began work-

ing as an airport security ofcer for the Jacksonville

Aviation Authority in 2011.

In 2014, he began taking classes at a police academy

while continuing to work as an airport security ofcer.

In May 2015, the authority posted an opening for

a police ofcer that stated the minimum requirements

for the position included four years of law-enforce-

ment experience and also a Florida law-enforcement

certication.

The plaintiff applied for the job even though he

hadn’t graduated from the academy.

A lieutenant told the plaintiff that there were

other better-qualied candidates because he didn’t

have law-enforcement certication. The lieutenant

suggested that the plaintiff apply for the next open

position once he was certied.

The applicant who was hired for the job was a white

male with valid police certication and several years

of law-enforcement experience.

In January 2017, Solomon claimed he was improp-

erly excluded from consideration for the police ofcer

position because he was black.

The authority led a motion for summary judg-

ment, arguing that the man it had hired exceeded all

of the posted criteria for the position, including prior

experience and law-enforcement certication.

The district court judge dismissed the suit.

On appeal, the court assumed for the purpose of

argument that the plaintiff had been qualied for the

police ofcer job at the time he had applied.

However, it ruled that the trial judge had acted

correctly because there was no evidence that the

defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason for failing to

hire him was false.

The panel explained it wasn’t enough for the plain-

tiff to show he was also qualied for the job. It stated

that courts wouldn’t second-guess an employer’s busi-

ness decisions, so long as they weren’t motivated by

discriminatory bias.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ The court said that a plain-

tiff attempting to show pretext by a comparison of

qualications was required to prove that the dispari-

ties in qualications between the successful applicant

and the plaintiff were so great that no reasonable

person could have chosen anyone over the plaintiff.

The court ruled that the plaintiff simply hadn’t

made that showing because there wasn’t any evidence

that the successful candidate’s qualications didn’t

exceed the posted criteria for the position.

The plaintiff also contended that the stated rea-

son for hiring someone else was false because the

authority had deviated from its normal procedures

and internal policies when it didn’t consider him to

be qualied for the position, despite his lack of law-

enforcement certication.

But the court ruled that the plaintiff’s argument

was unavailing because he had admitted that a lieu-

tenant had told him after he had submitted an appli-

cation that there were more qualied applicants. The

panel ruled that was consistent with the authority’s

stated reason for hiring someone else.

The appellate court afrmed the ruling of the trial

court judge.

[Solomon v. Jacksonville Aviation Authority, et al.,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No.

18-12243, 01/01/2019].

Disability

Employee loses FMLA suit

Because he became seriously ill in 2014, the plain-

tiff—who was the senior accountant for the city of

Oak Park Heights — was approved for leave under

the Family and Medical Leave Act.

When that FMLA leave expired three months later,

the city administrator granted him 60 days unpaid

leave, with the possibility of an additional 30 days.

In September, the plaintiff obtained the additional

leave after providing a doctor’s letter that stated he

was still unable to return.

In October, the plaintiff provided a doctor’s note

that stated that he might be able to work in December.

The city decided in November that the senior

accountant position was no longer needed, partly

because its duties had been absorbed by other

employees. However, the city administrator speci-

cally created the position of “Utility Billing Clerk/

Accounting Technician” so that the plaintiff would

have a job when he returned, albeit at a lower salary.

A few days later, the plaintiff’s doctor provided a