Case Study:
Prudencio v. Runyon, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service 986 F. Supp. 343 (W.D. Va. 1997)
A brother and sister of Philippine origin took the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) test, scored high marks, and were never hired during a four-year period, while other non-Philippines with lower scores were hired. They sued for national origin discrimination. Because the Postal Service could not explain on which basis the decision was made not to hire the individuals, the court held that “as a matter of law, ‘no reason’ cannot serve as a ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason,’ the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of national origin discrimination remains unrebutted.” The court therefore found in favor of the plaintiffs.
Michael, J.
The plaintiffs, Maritess and Robin Prudencio (“Prudencio”), are brother and sister. Both are of Asian (specifically, Philippine) origin. In 1989, both took a United States Postal Service (“USPS” or “Post Office”) qualifying examination in an effort to secure employment with the Post Office. Both of the plaintiffs passed the test; Maritess Prudencio received a score of 98.80 out of a possible score of 100 and Robin Prudencio got a score of 94.00. Upon receipt of such passing scores, the plaintiffs were qualified in all respects to be considered for employment. After the test, in May 1989, the Post Office apparently placed job applicants’ names on an eligibility “register” in Richmond from which names are drawn as and when positions become available at designated branches. Names were to be placed on the register in numerical order by the score each applicant received on the qualifying test. When a position opened up, a computergenerated list of names was to be produced in the order of the scores received on the test. Between 1989 and November 1993, the Post Office never contacted the plaintiffs concerning their status for potential employment. Although on three separate occasions names were drawn, in which Maritess ranked within the applicants on three occasions and Robin met the scoring on two occasions, the plaintiffs were never on the hiring list. Of the four persons hired from the worksheet’s list of names all had lower test scores than the plaintiffs; three of the persons hired were white, one was black, and none was Asian. Case2 *** The applicants have alleged sufficient facts in their complaint to state a claim for discriminatory failure to hire. The Prudencios are members of a protected class because of their national origin (Philippine); they were qualified, by virtue of their high scores on the Post Office tests, for the job in the Charlottesville branch for which the USPS was seeking applicants; they were not hired despite their qualifications; and the positions remained open and the USPS continued to seek or accept applications. The employer filled the positions in question with persons of the applicants’ qualifications, but from outside the Title VII protected class (i.e., the white persons hired). Moreover, in the administrative proceedings below, the Post Office admitted that the plaintiffs met all elements of the prima facie test. The USPS objects . . . that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of national origin discrimination. The defendant argues . . . [that] the USPS did not know that the Prudencios are of Asian ancestry and, thus, within a Title VII protected class. Of course, while knowledge of a job applicant’s race by an employer is a prerequisite for intentional discrimination, the necessary knowledge (or constructive knowledge) is present here. As an initial matter, the Prudencios’ father, possessing the same surname, has been employed by the Post Office they applied to in Charlottesville for over fifteen years. Additionally, the USPS acquired actual notice of the Prudencios’ national origin when the plaintiffs personally appeared before postal employees to take the employment test in 1989 and again in 1993 to request copies of the “Individual Applicant Ranking Report.” Because the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination is not an “onerous” one, and because the USPS had either actual or constructive notice of the plaintiffs’ protected national origin status, defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment shall be denied. The Prudencios make out a classic prima facie case of employment discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas paradigm. The defendant-employer must “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination, “the employer must respond or lose.” *** Here, the Post Office attempts to proffer two “legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons” that accounted for the omission of the Prudencios’ names from the worksheet issued for the Charlottesville branch’s vacancies. One such reason is that an administrative or computer error of some type in the Richmond office removed the Prudencios’ names from the active list of applicants when the registry was automated; the Post Office headquarters in Richmond failed to forward the full list of qualified applicants to the branch office in Charlottesville where the ultimate hiring decision was made. Thus, because the Richmond Post Office, for whatever reason, omitted the plaintiffs’ names from the registry, the Charlottesville branch was operating on a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis when it failed to hire the Prudencios. The plaintiffs argue, and the court agrees, however, that in addition to the above reason’s overly syllogistic logic, the USPS cannot and does not know that an innocent error (administrative, computer, or otherwise) accounted for the plaintiffs’ exclusion from the Charlottesville job candidates’ list. Indeed, as the Post Office itself stated The Postal Service merely speculate[s] that the omission of the Plaintiffs’ names from the hiring work sheets resulted from administrative or computer error. What actually caused the apparent error is not known. In this court’s view, the USPS’s concession that it does not know the reason for the exclusion of the plaintiffs from the employment candidates’ list is the logical and legal equivalent of proffering no reason for the omission. Because, as a matter of law, “no reason” cannot serve as a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason,” the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of national origin discrimination remains unrebutted. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, then, the Prudencios are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment GRANTED for the Prudencios.
Q1. Who has to prove a company discriminated against an employee or applicant? Do you agree with this?
Q2. Do you think this was an “honest mistake” by the Post Office? If so, how can the Post Office prove that it had unintentionally removed the plaintiffs from the list?
Q3. As an employer, what is the best way for you to protect the company from charges accusing the employer of hiring discrimination?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format.