Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Martinez v. Wyoming, 218 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. July 19, 2000)

Keywords: Title VII (race and sex discrimination, failure to promote)

Introduction: Michael Martinez sued the Department of Family Services under Title VII alleging race and sex discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. The Tenth Circuit affirms.

Facts: Martinez, a Hispanic male, sought vacant positions with the Department in 1991 and 1992, but was not selected either time.

Law:

1. 1991 claim
   1. This claim is time barred because he did not file an EEOC charge with respect to the 1991 failure to hire.
   2. He did file a timely charge with respect to the 1992 claim, but the continuing violation theory does not apply because the 1991 failure to hire was a discrete act from the 1992 failure to hire.
2. 1992 claim
   1. This claim fails because Martinez failed to show that the proffered reasons for selecting the female applicant were pretextual:
      1. Martinez's statistical evidence was flawed because it failed to compare similarly situated individuals and failed to eliminate nondiscriminatory reasons for the numerical disparities.
      2. Martinez could establish pretext by showing that he was the most qualified candidate. But while the evidence shows that he was qualified, it does not show that he was the most qualified.
3. Therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
4. Click here to see actual case.