42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

When an employer says it chose better-qualified applicants for a promotion, a discrimination plaintiff must show that he was clearly better qualified to raise a fact question about pretext.

Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. · filed 2005-03-24(a)(1)

Although Dailey’s summary judgment evidence shows that he may be qualified for the positions he sought, he did not show that he is clearly better qualified than those selected for promotion.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; in a failure-to-promote claim, a prima facie case and evidence of pretext can permit a jury to decide whether the employer discriminated.

Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2005-04-19(a)(1)

This evidence of pretext along with Hithon’s prima facie case of discrimination was sufficient for the jury to decide whether Tyson discriminated.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff using the pretext framework to show that he was qualified for the position as part of a prima facie discrimination case.

Sutton v. Cree, Inc. · filed 2005-06-22(a)

Plaintiff has acknowledged that he has neither an engineering nor other technical degree, which was a minimum qualification for the Production Supervisor position. Because a reasonable jury could not find Plaintiff otherwise qualified for the position, he has failed to meet his burden of proving a prima facie case for discriminatory failure to promote under Title VII, § 1981, and the ADEA.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not make a failure to promote unlawful when genuine nondiscriminatory concerns motivated the decision, regardless of the applicants’ relative qualifications.

Thierry v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 2005-08-18(a)(1)

Instead, he cited other concerns about circumstances in the Oklahoma City office. If these concerns were genuine, then there was no Title VII violation, regardless of the relative qualifications of the applicants.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff must show that he was qualified for the position to establish a prima facie discrimination claim under Section 2000e-2(a).

KEBIRO v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2005-12-09(a)

In this case, Kebiro has not satisfied his initial burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework of establishing prima facie cases of discrimination under Title VII and/or the ADEA. This conclusion is predicated on the court’s findings that Kebiro was not qualified for any of the positions sought.

A plaintiff challenging a promotion decision under § 2000e-2(a) must show that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual and that gender discrimination motivated the decision to survive summary judgment.

Sigall-Drakulich v. City of Columbus · filed 2005-12-14(a)

To survive summary judgment, Plaintiff must demonstrate both that Defendant’s rationale is incredible and that the true motivation behind her nonpromotion included intentional discrimination because of her gender. ... Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that Defendant’s true motivation was discriminatory.

Section 2000e-2(a) does not require a failure-to-promote plaintiff to prove at the prima facie stage that they were more qualified than the selected applicant.

Summerlin v. M&H Valve Company · filed 2006-01-17(a)

Summerlin does not need to show that he was more qualified than the successful applicant as part of his prima facie case.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff using indirect proof must present evidence that she was qualified for the position sought.

Fulmore v. Home Depot, U.S.A. Inc. · filed 2006-03-30(a)(1)

Ultimately, however, Baven cannot meet her burden to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was qualified for the head cashier positions because of her undisputed attendance and dependability deficits.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim cannot survive summary judgment when the employee fails to show that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual.

Wilbert Price v. M&H Valve Company · filed 2006-04-07(a)(1)

However, assuming for purposes of argument that Price established a prima facie claim of failure to promote, he failed to show that M & H Valve’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting him were pretextual.

Under Section 2000e-2(a)(1), a failure-to-promote plaintiff must show that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual to survive summary judgment.

Roper v. City of Foley · filed 2006-04-18(a)(1)

Accordingly, assuming that Roper established a prima facie case of Title VII failure to promote, we conclude that he failed to show that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the City of Foley’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting him were pretextual.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence to show that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual.

Delores M. Brooks v. County Commission, Jefferson · filed 2006-04-18(a)

On this record, Brooks did not establish that the County’s proffered reason was pretextual, nor did she indirectly show that the proffered reason was “unworthy of credence.”

In a failure-to-promote claim, a plaintiff cannot show pretext by isolating one favorable criterion while ignoring the candidates’ overall qualifications.

Hux v. City of Newport News · filed 2006-06-23(a)(1)

A plaintiff cannot create a triable issue by selecting from the many criteria used in the promotions process the one factor on which he or she may conceivably compare.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits race discrimination in promotions, but a claim fails when the employee cannot show that the employer’s legitimate selection reasons were pretextual.

Bacon v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2006-07-13

These are legitimate reasons for Honda’s selection of Real over Manuel, and Manuel has failed to present any evidence to indicate that they are mere pretext.

A plaintiff challenging a promotion decision under § 2000e-2(a) must show that the employer’s stated reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason.

Milledge v. Rayonier, Incorporated · filed 2006-08-08(a)

After careful review, we discern no error in the district court’s finding that the Walthours failed to establish that Rayonier’s reasons for promoting Harvey and Bowen rather than the Walthours -- these reasons included that Harvey and Bowen had performed vibration testing for three years and continued to perform the work on a relief basis afterwards and therefore had superior experience -- constituted a pretext for discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show, as part of a prima facie discrimination case, that he was qualified for the position and that the employer sought or promoted applicants with his qualifications.

Kebiro v. WalMart · filed 2006-08-10(a)(1)

Kebiro has presented no evidence that he was qualified for any of the management positions for which he applied. Furthermore, Kebiro has tendered no evidence that persons with his qualifications were promoted to those positions. By contrast, Wal-Mart submitted affidavits from various employees who stated, inter alia, that all the persons who were promoted did have supervisory experience. Because Kebiro fails to establish either the second or fourth elements of a prima facie case of discrimination, Wal-Mart is entitled to summary judgment on that claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits denying a promotion because of race; a later promotion does not erase an earlier discriminatory denial.

Sublett, Lateirra R. v. John Wiley & Sons · filed 2006-09-13(a)(1)

It is true that if Wiley’s initial decision not to promote Sublett was based on race, its later decision to promote her does not erase the earlier discrimination.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing protected status, qualification and application for an available job, an adverse employment action, and circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination.

Bush v. Fordham University · filed 2006-09-25(a)(1)

Bush may establish her prima facie case of discrimination for failure to promote by demonstrating that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances surrounding that action permit an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote claimant to show qualification for the position to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Brady v. Livingood · filed 2006-09-29(a)(1)

With respect to plaintiffs non-selection for promotion to Shift Supervisor and/or Evening Shift Supervisor, plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination because plaintiff cannot show that he was qualified for the promotion.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff challenging a promotion decision with circumstantial evidence to produce evidence that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual; longer tenure alone did not establish pretext here.

Davis v. NPC Pizza Hut · filed 2007-03-15(a)

The plaintiffs therefore could not establish pretext simply by comparing their qualifications to Stanford’s. Because they produced no additional evidence of pretext, they did not meet their burden of production, and summary judgment was proper.

For a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, a plaintiff meets the prima facie qualification requirement by showing that she satisfied the employer’s objective qualifications.

Champ v. Calhoun County Emergency Management Agency · filed 2007-03-26(a)

We conclude that Champ established a prima facie case. To meet the prima facie qualification requirement, the plaintiff need only show that she satisfied the employer’s objective qualifications.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a) fails when the employer has a legitimate reason for its decision and the applicant cannot show that the reason was a pretext for racial discrimination.

Halfacre v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2007-04-03(a)

Halfacre fails to show that Home Depot did not simply have a good-faith concern about Halfacre’s schedule when it failed to promote him. ... This provided a legitimate basis for Home Depot to believe his schedule was not amenable to the Department Supervisor position.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a sex discrimination failure-to-promote claim to proceed when evidence raises a triable issue about whether the employer’s stated reasons are pretextual.

Jackson v. New York City Department of Homeless Services · filed 2007-04-17(a)(1)

The evidence shows that there is a triable issue of material fact as to who made the decision not to promote Jackson and whether the explanations for this decision are inconsistent or pretextual.

A failure-to-promote or rehire claim based on race requires circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Lopez v. City of Brookings · filed 2007-05-29(a)(1)

Despite this assumption, he does not meet the fourth requirement because the adverse actions did not occur under circumstances giving rise to any inference of discrimination based on race. Lopez has thus not made out a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotions; when an employer gives a legitimate reason for denying a promotion, the applicant must show that reason is a pretext for discrimination.

Adams v. Cobb County School District · filed 2007-06-15(a)(1)

Adams has thus failed to show that the District’s reason for not promoting him — a comparative lack of relevant job experience — was pretext for race discrimination. We accordingly affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the District on Adams’s Title VII and § 1983 discrimination claims.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a) requires evidence that the employee was qualified for an available position.

Tolbert v. Briggs and Stratton, Corp. · filed 2007-11-29(a)

Tolbert failed to present evidence either that he was qualified for a promotion or that a promotion was even offered by Briggs. Because Tolbert failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, his promotion claim fails.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show that the employer sought applicants for the position.

Ludwiczak v. Hitachi Capital America Corp. · filed 2007-12-27(a)(1)

Simply put, in the absence of any evidence that the Defendant actually sought, either formally or informally, applicants for a Vice President in the Syndications group, the Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie failure-to-promote case under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee challenging a promotion decision to show that the employer’s stated legitimate reasons were pretext for discrimination.

Peters v. Shamrock Foods Co. · filed 2007-12-27(a)(1)

Because Peters has supplied neither direct evidence nor specific and substantial circumstantial evidence of discrimination, she has failed to carry her burden of proving that Shamrock’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her nonselection were merely pretextual.

Section 2000e-2 requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show she was qualified for the position and, when the employer gives a nondiscriminatory reason, to raise a genuine factual dispute over pretext.

Romo v. Springs Window Fashions Division, Inc. · filed 2008-01-17

Romo has failed to show that she was qualified for the group lead II position and therefore has not made a prima facie case of national origin discrimination. ... Even if Romo made a prima facie case for the materials coordinator promotion, the record contains nothing that raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Springs’ nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting her (another employee’s superior qualifications) was pretextual.

An employee relying on pretext to challenge a race-based failure to promote must produce evidence rebutting the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons.

Ajao v. Bed Bath & Beyond · filed 2008-02-08(a)(1)

A plaintiff relying on pretext must “produce evidence rebutting all of a defendant’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons”. ... Accordingly, he failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on whether the poor-performance reason given by BB&B was mere pretext for discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a plaintiff challenging a promotion decision must show that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual.

Surrell v. Ca Water Service Co. · filed 2008-03-10(a)(1)

Even assuming that Surrell sets forth a prima facie case as to Cal Water, she fails to show that Cal Water’s articulated reason for promoting Coe—i.e., that Coe was more qualified—was pretextual.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff using the direct method avoids summary judgment by showing a genuine factual dispute over whether discrimination motivated the decision.

Jones v. City of Springfield, Ill. · filed 2008-03-28(a)(1)

Under the direct method, whether relying on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff avoids summary judgment if he shows there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the challenged employment action had a discriminatory motivation.

A plaintiff challenging a promotion as gender discrimination must raise a genuine dispute that the employer’s stated legitimate reasons were pretexts for discrimination.

Moore v. Jefferson County Department of Human Resources · filed 2008-05-08(a)(1)

Because Moore failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to whether DHR’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the October 2004 and January 2005 promotions were pretexts for gender discrimination, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of DHR.

A plaintiff claiming discriminatory failure to promote must show that she was qualified for the position sought.

Jones v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY · filed 2008-05-09(a)(2)

The undisputed evidence demonstrates that the superintendent position required a minimum of one to three years of supervisory experience. Plaintiff has produced no evidence that she had such experience or otherwise possessed the objective qualifications to perform the position. ... Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff challenging a promotion decision as racially discriminatory to show that the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was a coverup for discrimination.

Rajah v. County of Clark · filed 2008-06-18(a)

The County has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision and Rajah has not met his burden to demonstrate the reason was “in fact a coverup for a racially discriminatory decision.”

Section 2000e-2 requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show that they meet the employer’s qualifications for the position.

Bittle v. Electrical Railway Improvement Co. · filed 2008-09-16

Bittle’s assertion that he was more qualified than Holt “in terms of experience and education” (Doc. 1 ¶ 14) does not control, because the analysis focuses on the qualifications set by the employer and not by the employee.

A failure to promote claim requires the plaintiff to have been employed by the defendant when it made the promotion decision.

Oliver v. National Beef Packing · filed 2008-09-18(a)(1)

Here Oliver failed to presented a prima facie case of discrimination regarding his failure to promote claim because National Beef had terminated his employment prior to making the decision and filling the lead maintenance worker position at issue. As he was not employed by National Beef, he has no claim against them for failing to promote.

Title VII permits a discriminatory failure-to-promote claim to proceed when circumstantial evidence could show that the employer’s stated reasons were a pretext for race discrimination.

Sprinkle v. CITY OF DOUGLAS, GA · filed 2008-11-21

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented “significantly probative evidence showing that [Defendants’] asserted reason[s][are] merely a pretext for discrimination,” and, therefore, summary judgment is not proper as to Plaintiffs race-based Title VII and § 1983 claims.

A plaintiff who lacks the qualifications for a promotion and identifies no similarly situated employees who received better pay or promotion fails to establish a prima facie race discrimination claim.

Welch v. Mercer University · filed 2008-12-24(a)(1)

Welch has failed to show that she is qualified for a faculty position within her department. She has also failed to show that any less or equally qualified individuals were promoted ahead of her, or that any similarly-situated individuals are paid more than her for essentially the same work. Accordingly, she has failed to present a prima facie case for discrimination.

A race-based failure-to-promote claim cannot survive summary judgment without evidence that race was a factor in the employer’s decision.

Pollard v. Quest Diagnostics · filed 2009-02-17(a)(1)

The Court finds, however, that Pollard cannot survive summary judgment because Pollard cannot establish that race was a factor, much less the sole factor, in Quest’s decision to select Townsend, rather than Pollard, to fill the Project Manager position.

A Title VII failure-to-promote plaintiff can survive summary judgment by showing weaknesses or inconsistencies in the employer’s stated reason that would let a reasonable factfinder disbelieve it.

Snooks v. Duquesne Light Co · filed 2009-02-24

Nevertheless, he was still able to satisfy his burden under the first prong of Fuentes, by “demonstrat[ing] such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in [DLC]’s proffered legitimate reasons that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence.” Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765 (internal quotation omitted). ... Accordingly, Snooks has provided sufficient evidence for his claim to survive DLC’s motion for summary judgment.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails at the prima facie stage when the employee did not apply for the position.

Eady v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. · filed 2009-03-31(a)(1)

However, as to the second part of the test, Eady did not apply for any position. Thus, he has failed to meet the second criteria for establishment of his prima facie case.

A failure to promote is not an adverse employment action when no position is available for the employee.

Adesalu v. Copps · filed 2009-03-31(a)(1)

Plaintiff could not have suffered an adverse employment action for failure to promote when there were no available vacancies.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race-based promotion decisions; an employee cannot survive summary judgment without evidence that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual or that the decision was based on race.

Nwachuku v. Jackson · filed 2009-03-31(a)(1)

Because these two arguments do not evince pretext and Nwachuku offers no other evidence to support her racial-discrimination claim, the Court finds Nwachuku has not provided evidence that would enable a reasonable juror to conclude the agency’s failure to promote her was based on race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotions, but a failure-to-promote claim cannot survive summary judgment when the employee fails to show that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Ogletree v. City of Auburn · filed 2009-03-31(a)(1)

For the reasons set out below, Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact that the City’s use of a cutoff score on the written examination is a pretext for racial discrimination or retaliation. As a result, Plaintiffs’ discriminatory failure-to-promote claims and Mr. Stephens’s retaliation claim cannot survive Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race-based failure to promote, but a claim cannot survive summary judgment without evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that the employer's stated reasons were pretextual.

Nwachuku v. Johnson · filed 2009-03-31(a)(1)

Because these two arguments do not evince pretext and Nwachuku offers no other evidence to support her racial-discrimination claim, the Court finds Nwachuku has not provided evidence that would enable a reasonable juror to conclude the agency's failure to promote her was based on race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not make a failure to promote an adverse employment action when no position is available.

Adesalu v. Martin · filed 2009-03-31(a)(1)

Plaintiff could not have suffered an adverse employment action for failure to promote when there were no available vacancies.

A failure-to-promote claim fails when no one is hired into the position, even if other employees take over its duties.

Colon-Perez v. Department of Health of Puerto Rico · filed 2009-06-11(a)(1)

The Court finds, however, that Colon fails to make an adequate showing in regards to the fourth element, that another person was hired to take the position whose credentials were similar to her own. No person was hired to act as an Executive Director IV, the career position held by Rolon.

An employee can establish that she was qualified for promotion under Title VII when the employer did not consistently apply its stated promotion criteria.

Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2009-08-14(a)(1)

Thus, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Upshaw, because Ford did not adhere to its stated criteria for granting in-series promotions, she has met her burden of establishing that she was qualified.

A plaintiff must be qualified for the promotion to establish a prima facie race discrimination claim for failure to promote under § 2000e-2(a).

Johnson v. Winter · filed 2009-08-19(a)

Accordingly, because the evidence shows that Johnson was not qualified for a promotion from a GS-9 to a GS-12 pay grade, the district court properly found that Johnson did not have a racial discrimination claim based on failure to promote.

Section 2000e-2 requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show that he was at least as qualified as the employees promoted instead.

Ellis v. Fedex Smartpost, Inc. · filed 2009-09-17

But the district court properly followed this circuit’s approach, which has consistently required a plaintiff to show that he was at least as qualified as the promoted employees, see, e.g., Hobbs v. City of Chi, 573 F.3d 454, 460 (7th Cir.2009); Jackson v. City of Chi, 552 F.3d 619, 622 (7th Cir.2009). Ellis made no such showing, as the district court explained, and we decline the invitation to depart from our precedent.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits sex discrimination in promotion, but a plaintiff must show that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual.

Maynard v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF DELAWARE AND DELAWARE COUNTY, INC. · filed 2010-01-11

The foregoing facts would not permit a trier of fact reasonably to disbelieve defendant’s reason for failing to promote plaintiff or conclude that some other invidious, discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of defendant’s action. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs evidence on the issue of failure to promote is legally insufficient to support a finding of discrimination.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory failure to promote must offer evidence from which a jury could infer that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Parikh v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2010-02-02

Plaintiff then has the obligation to offer evidence from which a rational jury might infer that the NYCTA’s proffered reasons for promoting Mr. McLean instead of plaintiff were actually a pretext for animus based on race or national origin.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently and that the employer’s stated business reason was pretextual.

Robinson v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC · filed 2010-02-10(a)(1)

After careful review of the evidence, we must conclude KaRon failed to show she was treated differently than other employees in regards to her promotion or that the business reasons proffered by Cavalry were pretext.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an actual promotional opportunity to support a prima facie failure-to-promote claim; a position that was never created is insufficient.

Chattman v. Toho Tenax America, Inc. · filed 2010-02-22(a)

The possibility of a new position to which plaintiff might be promoted is not enough to satisfy this third prong.

For a failure-to-promote claim under Section 2000e-2(a)(1), an employee must show that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual or that race was a motivating factor.

Goring v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University · filed 2010-04-13(a)(1)

However, Goring fails to show either that the Board’s reason was pretextual or that Goring’s race was a motivating factor in the Board’s decision making process.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in promotions, and a disparate-treatment claim requires proof of discriminatory intent or motive.

Carroll v. City of Mount Vernon · filed 2010-04-26(a)

Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race....” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). ... Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of showing that, in failing to promote him, the Defendants had “discriminatory intent or motive.”

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) cannot establish discrimination when the positions were never filled.

Bryant v. Dougherty County School Sys. · filed 2010-06-15(a)(1)

As noted above, Bryant’s failure to obtain any of the first three positions could not have been discriminatory because the positions were not filled.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not make preselection for a promotion unlawful without evidence that it was motivated by discrimination.

Downing v. Tapella · filed 2010-07-27(a)(1)

Pre-selection, regardless of its propriety, is only relevant to this lawsuit inasmuch as plaintiff can demonstrate that the pre-selection itself was discriminatorily motivated. Because plaintiff does not allege or offer any evidence that a discriminatory animus factored in the pre-selection, the Court concludes that pre-selection does not bear on his discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a rejected promotion applicant to show that the employer’s stated qualifications-based reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Perry v. Locke · filed 2010-10-29(a)

The vacancy announcements expressly state that superior education cannot substitute for relevant experience, and it is undisputed that the selectees had more extensive and more recent supervisory experience than Plaintiff. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate pretext.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim cannot survive summary judgment when the employer gives legitimate reasons for its decision and the employee lacks evidence that discrimination played a part.

Estate of Hamilton v. City of New York · filed 2010-12-03

Accordingly, we agree with the District Court that plaintiffs’ discrimination claims based on their failure to receive promotions cannot survive summary judgment.

A qualified applicant can establish a prima facie race discrimination claim for failure to promote when the position goes to someone outside the applicant’s protected class.

Weaks v. North Carolina Department of Transportation · filed 2011-01-25(a)(1)

The position was filled by Keel, a Caucasian. Thus, Weaks has established a prima facie case of a discriminatory refusal to promote.

In a race-based failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a), an employer meets its burden by producing evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for selecting another applicant.

Soublet v. Louisiana Tax Commission · filed 2011-02-03(a)

Accordingly, the defendant has met its burden of producing evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiffs non-selection.

A race discrimination claim based on failure to promote can proceed without a formal application when the evidence supports that applying would have been futile.

Riley-Jackson v. Casino Queen, Inc. · filed 2011-02-27(a)(1)

The Casino Queen admits that a failure to promote is an adverse employment action but argues that Burton’s failure to bid on promotions defeats any adverse employment actions that he sustained. The fact that Burton has never bid on a new position or expressed interest in a promotion is not probative.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits sex discrimination in hiring, but a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must show that the employer’s stated reason for its decision was pretextual.

Boese v. Fort Hays State University · filed 2011-04-28(a)(1)

Other than Plaintiffs sincerely-held personal belief that she has been wronged, nothing suggests that FHSU discriminated against her when it hired Timken, or that she was overwhelmingly more qualified for the supervisor position. Without evidence of pretext, Plaintiffs claim fails on the merits, and thus summary judgment is appropriate.

In a sex discrimination promotion claim, flaws in the interview process do not establish pretext when the selected candidate’s qualifications drove the decision.

Jividen v. University of Tennessee · filed 2011-07-11(a)(1)

That Sutton’s interview process might have been flawed by the University’s human resources standards does not show that Flanagan’s education, formal training, and supervisory experience were not the reasons for his promotion.

In a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, evidence that the applicant was significantly more qualified than those selected can support an inference that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Fields v. Johanns · filed 2011-07-19(a)(1)

Because Fields has not demonstrated that she was significantly or markedly more qualified for the AMS position than the selectees, the Court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that the USDA’s explanation was false.

A slight qualifications advantage does not establish pretext in a Title VII failure-to-promote claim.

Bailey v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2011-09-16(a)

In this case, a reasonable jury could not find that Plaintiff possessed the “stark superiority of credentials” over Wright that can give rise to an inference of pretext.

A failure-to-promote sex discrimination claim requires facts supporting a plausible inference that the employee sought a promotion and was denied it because of sex.

Tasciyan v. MEDICAL NUMERICS · filed 2011-10-28(a)(1)

These threadbare allegations fail to support the inference that Tasciyan actually applied for a promotion in 2009. Even if they did, they still fail to support the inference that Defendants’ failure to promote Tasciyan owed to her sex.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory failure to promote must show that she was qualified for the position.

Davis v. Dallas Independent School District · filed 2011-11-04(a)(1)

As the district court correctly recognized, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she is qualified for the position at issue to make out a prima facie failure to promote claim.

A race-based failure-to-promote claim requires evidence that the plaintiff was qualified for the position.

Paul v. Americold Logistics, LLC · filed 2012-01-05(a)(1)

The district court here correctly concluded that Paul failed to show that he was qualified for the auditor position, which is the second element of a prima facie discriminatory failure to promote claim.

An employer’s promotion of someone outside the plaintiff’s protected class can support an inference of discrimination in a failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

McCaskey v. Henry · filed 2012-01-17(a)(1)

A showing that a member outside of the protected class received a promotion instead of the plaintiff is sufficient to create an inference of discrimination. Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 458 (4th Cir. 1994). McCaskey has thus alleged facts that give rise to an inference of discrimination sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal of her failure to promote claim.

A qualifications comparison supports an inference of discrimination under § 2000e-2(a) only if the plaintiff was significantly better qualified than the person selected.

Butler v. Sebelius · filed 2012-02-08(a)

Evidence that Plaintiff was better qualified, however, does not suffice to support an inference of discrimination; rather, a jury must be able to find Plaintiff was “significantly better qualified for the job” than Wade.

In a failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), an employer can meet its burden of production by offering legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for choosing another candidate.

Holley v. North Carolina Department of Administration · filed 2012-02-10(a)(1)

Accordingly, the NCDOA has met its burden of production and the burden shifts back to Holley to demonstrate that the NCDOA’s justification is pretextual.

For a race-based failure-to-promote claim, a prima facie case shifts the burden to the employer to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.

Matthews v. City of West Point · filed 2012-03-23(a)(1)

Once a plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the defendant then has the burden of producing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive for the adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging a discriminatory failure to promote to show she was qualified for the position.

Baur v. Crum · filed 2012-03-30(a)(1)

However, to fully establish the prima facie case, Plaintiff must also prove that she was qualified for the position, which she cannot do.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race and sex discrimination in promotion decisions; a plaintiff relying on relative qualifications must show a gap large enough to support an inference of discrimination.

Higgins v. Inspector General, United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 2012-04-03(a)(1)

Given this undisputed evidence, Higgins was not “significantly better qualified” than Rokosz.

In a failure-to-promote claim, a plaintiff can show pretext by proving the employer’s explanation is false or that she was clearly better qualified than the person selected.

Criner v. Texas - New Mexico Power Co., et a · filed 2012-05-07

The burden therefore shifts back to Criner who can either 1) show that the explanation is false or unworthy of credence; or 2) prove she is clearly better qualified than the person selected for the position.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a discriminatory failure-to-promote claim to proceed when the complaint alleges facts supporting the four elements of that claim.

Coles v. Carilion Clinic · filed 2012-07-13(a)

Therefore, because Coles has advanced factual allegations in the amended complaint which, if believed, would satisfy the four required elements and entitle him to relief, the court will deny Carilion’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion with respect to the nonpromotion claim.

In a failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff challenging the employer’s stated reason must show that the reason was false and discrimination was the real reason.

Lawson-James v. City of Atlanta · filed 2012-07-30(a)(1)

Lawson-James failed to show either that the City’s explanations for its hiring decisions were false or that discrimination was the real reason for them.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging race discrimination in a failure to promote to show that she was qualified and that similarly qualified employees outside her protected class received promotions.

Cleveland v. Southern Disposal Waste Connections · filed 2012-08-09(a)(1)

However, Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that she was either qualified for either position or that other employees of similar qualifications who were not members of the protected class received a promotion to those positions.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race and national origin discrimination in promotions; a failure-to-promote claim requires evidence supporting an inference of discrimination.

Workneh v. Pall Corp. · filed 2012-10-11(a)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). ... Even if Plaintiff were qualified for the position, no reasonable juror could conclude that Defendants’ decision not to promote him to Assistant Manager or Manager was racially motivated.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote discrimination claimant to show that they were qualified for the position.

Hypolite v. City of Houston, Texas · filed 2012-10-15(a)(1)

Because neither Garrett nor Pratt establish that they were qualified for the positions for which they applied at the February 2003 job fair, they have failed to meet their initial burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination.

When an employer says it selected a more qualified candidate, a plaintiff relying on comparative qualifications must show an overwhelming disparity to establish pretext under § 2000e-2.

Green v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Ass'n · filed 2012-11-01

Therefore, “to suggest that an employer’s claim that it hired someone else because of superior qualifications is pretext for discrimination rather than an honestly (even if mistakenly) held belief, a plaintiff must come forward with facts showing an overwhelming disparity in qualifications.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). ... We agree with the district court that Mr. Green failed to present sufficient evidence to meet these standards.

A worker who did not apply for a promotion cannot rely on futility unless knowledge of discriminatory rejection caused the worker not to apply.

Daniels v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2012-12-11(a)(2)

Futility does not apply here. Daniels contends she was unaware of a potential discriminatory basis for UPS’s failure to promote her until at least July 31, 2008, when Gary Liberti acknowledged UPS had not followed its stated policy in handling her promotion requests. Thus, Daniels’s failure to apply for a promotion in 2007 was not due to her knowledge she would be discriminatorily rejected had she applied.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits denying a promotion because of race; to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must show pretext as to every neutral explanation the employer offers.

Hairston v. Tapella · filed 2013-01-16(a)(1)

What Title VII forbids is denying a promotion because of one’s race. ... To defeat a Title VII defendant’s summary judgment motion, a plaintiff must demonstrate pretext as to all of the defendant’s proffered neutral explanations, not just some of them.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff cannot establish pretext merely by believing she was more qualified; the qualifications disparity must be so great that no reasonable person could have chosen the selected candidate.

Scott v. Rite Aid of Georgia, Inc. · filed 2013-01-18(a)(1)

Plaintiff has not met her burden to show that the disparities between her qualifications and those of Torchia, Jordan, Martin, and Ejindu were so severe that no reasonable person could have chosen them over Plaintiff. The fact Plaintiff subjectively believes she was the most qualified candidate holds no weight.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a plaintiff to establish a prima facie discriminatory failure-to-promote claim through a proper comparator or evidence that the position remained open after the plaintiff was rejected.

Jefferson v. Burger King Corporation · filed 2013-01-29(a)

Jefferson did not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote under the traditional McDonnell Douglas formulation because he did not identify a proper comparator or establish that any position that he applied for remained open after Burger King rejected his applications.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) forbids denying a promotion because of race; to defeat summary judgment, a plaintiff must rebut all of the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons.

Hairston v. Boardman · filed 2013-01-16(a)(1)

What Title VII forbids is denying a promotion because of one’s race. ... To defeat a Title VII defendant’s summary judgment motion, a plaintiff must demonstrate pretext as to all of the defendant’s proffered neutral explanations, not just some of them.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits discriminatory promotion decisions; a rejected applicant must offer evidence that the employer’s stated selection reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Patel v. Nicholson · filed 2013-03-18

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in hiring decisions, in compensation, terms, and conditions of employment, and in classifying employees in a way that would adversely affect their status as employees. ... Because Mr. Patel does not dispute that the selectees scored significantly higher on the interviews and offers no other argument to demonstrate pretext, this case turns on whether an ASCP certification was required for the positions at the time of selection. ... The Court concludes that ASCP certification did not become a requirement for the positions at issue until late 2006—almost two years after Mr. Patel’s non-selection in November and December of 2004.

An employer may justify a promotion decision by choosing a more qualified candidate, and a rejected applicant must present evidence that this reason was pretextual.

Hawkins v. Memphis Light Gas and Water · filed 2013-03-20(a)(1)

Selecting a more qualified candidate constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. ... The record thus does not support that Hawkins was the plainly superior candidate such that no reasonable employer would have chosen Miller over Hawkins.

A failure-to-promote claim under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) must allege facts plausibly suggesting that the employer passed over the plaintiff because of race.

Hussey v. New York State Department of Law/Office of Attorney General · filed 2013-03-20(a)(1)

Plaintiff is, however, required to allege some facts — not mere conclusions — plausibly suggesting that the decision to pass her over for the promotion that defendant Dean ultimately received was made because of plaintiffs race.

Under § 2000e-2(a), an employee alleging sex discrimination in a failure to promote must rebut the employer’s legitimate reason for selecting other candidates.

Laincy v. Chatham County Board of Assessors · filed 2013-05-28(a)

Assuming arguendo that Laincy established a prima facie case, he nonetheless did not rebut the County’s proffered reason for promoting two women as appraisers rather than promoting Laincy. Specifically, those individuals had taken appraisal classes, and Laincy had not.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in promotion, but a claimant must produce evidence that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext.

Ray v. Ropes & Gray LLP · filed 2013-08-16(a)

Against this backdrop, Ray has not come forward with plausible evidence that the partner evaluations or the Policy Committee’s decision, consciously or unconsciously, were tinged with or influenced by racial animus.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim requires evidence that the employee was qualified for the position sought.

Gosey v. Aurora Medical Center · filed 2013-09-26(a)(1)

Despite viewing the evidence and the inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to Gosey, she has not presented sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that she was qualified for the food and nutrition services manager position.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim generally fails when an employee does not apply for a vacancy through the employer’s formal application process.

Johnny Giles, Jr. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 2013-10-03(a)(1)

Mr. Giles’ failure to submit an application for a services technician position through his employer’s formal system of posting vacancies dooms his claims. Generally, a plaintiff cannot claim an employer discriminatorily failed to give a promotion when the employee never applied for the position.

A national-origin failure-to-promote claim requires evidence of a more favorably treated comparator or other evidence supporting an inference of discrimination.

Aristyld v. The City of Lauderhill · filed 2013-10-23(a)

As the district court correctly found below, Aristyld failed to establish a prima facie case of a discriminatory failure-to-promote on the basis of his national origin, because he failed to identify a similarly situated individual outside of his protected class who was treated more favorably. Nor did Aristyld submit evidence sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination in this respect.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim requires evidence of racial discrimination; favoritism alone is insufficient.

Brown v. Delaware River Port Authority · filed 2014-03-28

At best, he has shown that the decision to promote Luongo was motivated by favoritism. Favoritism, without discriminatory intent, is not actionable under Title VII.

Once an employer gives a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a promotion decision, the employee must show that the reason was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

Catalan v. House of Raeford · filed 2014-04-24(a)(1)

Once House of Raeford provided a legitimate reason for the decision, the burden shifted to Catalan to prove that the articulated reason was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory failure to promote can establish a prima facie case by showing protected-class membership, qualifications, denial of the position, and selection of someone with similar or inferior qualifications.

Ahmed v. Napolitano · filed 2014-05-21(a)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Ahmed needed to show that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the open position of Deportation Officer, (3) he was denied the position, and (4) the position was given to someone with similar or inferior qualifications.

A Title VII failure-to-promote plaintiff must show that an equally or less-qualified employee outside her protected class received the promotion.

Edwards v. National Vision, Inc. · filed 2014-06-12(a)(1)

In the failure-to-promote context, she had to establish four elements, including that another equally or less-qualified employee outside her class was promoted. ... She failed to establish that NVI promoted an equally or less-qualified employee ... outside of her class, and therefore, did not meet her burden.

In a race discrimination claim based on a denied promotion, an employer is entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiffs cannot show that its stated nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual.

Garofalo v. Village of Hazel Crest · filed 2014-06-12

However, the Defendant-Appellees were entitled to summary judgment because they “articulated non- discriminatory reasons for the decisions not to promote” Garofalo and Peers, reasons that Garofalo and Peers could not prove were pretext.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show that she was qualified for the position to establish a prima facie race discrimination claim.

Williams v. Horry-Georgetown Technical College · filed 2014-06-17(a)(1)

Thus, based upon the minimum requirements posted for the Coordinator position, Plaintiff was not qualified because she was not proficient in Microsoft 2007 and, during her interview, failed to demonstrate excellent communication skills or strong organizational skills. As such, Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of race or age discrimination.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff must show that the employer’s stated legitimate reason was pretext for discrimination.

Marquis K. Paschal v. United Parcel Service · filed 2014-07-25(a)(1)

As Paschal has failed to show UPS’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for failing to promote him was mere pretext, the district court did not err in granting UPS’s motion for summary judgment.

For a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, placement on an eligibility list may satisfy the adverse action element at summary judgment when the plaintiff alleges that it was how he applied for the position.

Adetuyi v. City of San Francisco · filed 2014-08-07

Accepting for purposes of summary judgment Adetuyi’s allegation that he applied for the acting supervisor position by qualifying for the eligibility list, Adetuyi satisfies the third element of a prima facie case of discrimination.

A qualified woman plausibly states a sex discrimination claim when she alleges that her employer passed her over for promotions awarded to less qualified men.

Fanelli v. New York · filed 2014-08-18(a)(1)

In the Court’s view, based on these allegations, the Plaintiff has pleaded with particularity that she was not given the promotions because of her gender. Indeed, based on these allegations, it is plausible that due to her sex, the Plaintiff was treated less favorably than her similarly-situated male counterparts. Thus, all of these allegations are sufficient to give the Defendants fair notice of the Plaintiffs claims and the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Title VII discrimination claim is denied.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits discriminatory promotion decisions; a plaintiff challenging an employer’s stated reasons must present evidence that they were false and that discrimination was the real reason.

Holmes v. Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles · filed 2014-11-13

Accordingly, Holmes did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Board’s two proffered reasons were false and a pretext for discrimination.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim requires evidence that the plaintiff was similarly qualified to the selected candidate and, when the employer gives a legitimate reason for its choice, evidence of pretext.

McQuail v. Tennessee Technological University · filed 2014-11-18(a)(1)

Because Defendants have offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the selection of Dr. Eisen, Plaintiff must forward some evidence that TTU’s decision was a pretext for discrimination. She has not done so.

An employer’s explained scoring of a subjective interview may justify a promotion decision and does not itself show pretext for discrimination.

Martinez v. Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights Division · filed 2014-12-30(a)

Because the TWC has provided some evidence demonstrating how it scored the applicants in the interview process, we conclude that the subjective assessment may serve as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision, and the use of the subjective assessment does not serve as evidence of pretext.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotions, but a plaintiff must offer sufficient evidence that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual to survive summary judgment.

Flores v. Danberg · filed 2015-03-24(a)(1)

While plaintiff seems to suggest that the hiring and promotional history at SCI, with respect to ranks higher than captain, demonstrates discriminatory intent, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to show sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretext. The court will grant summary judgment for defendants on this claim for racial discrimination in violation of Title VII and § 1981.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim without direct evidence is assessed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Artis v. Finishing Brands Holdings, Inc. · filed 2015-03-19(a)(1)

He does not present any direct discrimination evidence; therefore his claims will be assessed using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

In a race-based failure-to-promote claim, an employee may show that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Gilmore v. Holder · filed 2015-04-02(a)(1)

The plaintiff can prove pretext by presenting evidence to show that the defendant’s explanation is “unworthy of credence” or by offering other forms of circumstantial evidence sufficiently probative of discrimination. ... After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reject Gilmore’s assertions as unsupported by the trial record and without merit.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits sex discrimination in promotions; an employee challenging an employer’s stated reasons must present sufficient evidence of pretext.

Cox v. First National Bank · filed 2015-07-06(a)(1)

Only First National’s lack of female executives supports pretext; neither Cox’s qualifications nor O’Neill’s reliance on tenure or the matrix support a reasonable inference that the failure to promote Cox was due to sex discrimination.

Section 2000e-2 requires evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that an employer’s stated reason for denying a promotion was a pretext for discrimination.

Coleman v. Napolitano · filed 2015-08-11

After examining the record, the court concludes that Defendant has presented a legitimate, non- discriminatory reason for not hiring Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff has failed to put forth evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant’s hiring decision was a pretext for discrimination.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a) fails at the prima facie stage when the employee does not identify the position sought, her qualifications, a similarly situated successful applicant, or an effect on employment terms.

Farid v. Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service · filed 2015-08-28(a)

The district court did not err when it entered summary judgment against Farid’s complaint of discrimination based on her race and national origin. Farid failed to establish a prima facie case that she was denied promotions because of her ethnicity. See id. As the district court stated, Farid did not identify what “position” she sought, whether she was qualified for the position, whether she was similarly situated to “the person who obtained the position,” or what “difference obtaining the position . . . would have made to [her] in pay or other terms and conditions of employment.”

A race-based failure-to-promote claim requires the applicant to be qualified for the position.

Cherry v. Elizabeth City State University · filed 2015-11-02(a)(1)

Here, Cherry admitted at his grievance hearing that he was not qualified to be a captain in 2011 due to a lack of supervisory law-enforcement experience.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence of pretext in a failure-to-promote claim; an applicant’s mere disagreement with an employer’s facially nondiscriminatory selection criteria does not suffice.

Lotocky v. Elmira City School District · filed 2015-12-15(a)(1)

Plaintiffs mere disagreement with the facially non-discriminatory criteria used by the District to evaluate candidates does not,-by itself, raise a question of fact as to whether its reasons for selecting McDonald instead of plaintiff were pretextual.

A race-based failure-to-promote claim fails when the employee cannot show that the employer’s stated reason for choosing another candidate was pretextual.

Johnny L. Griffin v. The City of Demorest · filed 2015-12-22(a)

Here, Griffin has not presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the City’s reason for not promoting him was pretextual.

A failure-to-promote discrimination claim under the indirect method requires a prima facie showing that the employer promoted someone outside the protected group who was not better qualified than the plaintiff.

Al-Hasan v. Milwaukee School of Engineering · filed 2015-12-23

In the context of this suit, which involves a failure to promote, the elements of the prima facie case are: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) the plaintiff was qualified for the position sought; (3) the plaintiff was rejected for the position; and (4) the employer promoted someone outside the protected group who was not better qualified than the plaintiff.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claimant must show that she applied for the position sought.

Jaburek v. Foxx · filed 2016-01-13(a)

Primarily, she has not shown that the FAA rejected her from the position of Program Analyst because she never applied for the position.

A plaintiff challenging a promotion decision under Section 2000e-2(a) must offer evidence of intentional sex discrimination; a subjective belief is insufficient.

Steele v. Pelmor Laboratories Inc · filed 2016-03-04(a)

Because Steele has the ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination, Jones, 198 F.3d at 410, her “gut feeling” cannot substitute for actual evidence.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a failure-to-promote sex discrimination claim to proceed when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual.

White v. Napolitano · filed 2016-03-25(a)(1)

The “central question” at this stage, therefore, is whether White has produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that CBP’s asserted nondiscriminatory reason for failing to promote her was not the actual reason and that, instead, CBP intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of her gender. See Wheeler, 812 F.3d at 1114. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that White has provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to reach that conclusion.

In a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, irregular and disputed subjective assessments do not necessarily prevent a jury from finding that the plaintiff was qualified at the prima facie stage.

Henry v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2016-06-10(a)

Given these irregularities and the subjective and anonymous nature of the surveys (which are not in the record), a reasonable jury could find that Henry was qualified for CRII training upon receiving her AE performance evaluation for 2009.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits denying a promotion because of sex or national origin, and evidence of stereotyping can support either claim.

Hussain v. Federal Express Corporation · filed 2016-07-26(a)(1)

Because Hussain presented evidence from which a rational juror could conclude that FedEx failed to promote her because of her sex, her national origin, or both, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further proceedings.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to apply for a formally announced vacancy or, when the employer uses informal selection procedures, show that the employer knew of the plaintiff’s interest.

Smith v. City of Thomasville · filed 2016-09-30(a)(1)

Additionally, where an employer institutes a formal procedure to announce a vacancy, the plaintiff must show that he applied for the position; however, where an employer uses informal procedures to identify eligible candidates, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that the employer knew of the plaintiffs interest in the position.

For a failure-to-promote claim where promotions have no formal application process, an employee who did not apply must show a justifiable belief that discriminatory practices made applying futile.

Wilson v. Dale Earnhardt Jr. Chevrolet · filed 2016-10-25(a)

Wilson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on race or age. Because Ernhardt Chevrolet promoted its employees without a formal application process, Wilson had to establish that “she refrained from applying due to a justifiable belief that [her] employer’s discriminatory practices made application a futile gesture.”

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show that he applied for the position.

Beach v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-10-26(a)

First, Beach cannot prevail on a discrimination claim based on the failure to promote him to a RM position because he has not shown that he applied for the promotion.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff may establish a prima facie case under § 2000e-2(a) by showing protected-class status, qualifications, denial of promotion, and selection of someone outside the protected class.

Smith v. Womans Hospital · filed 2016-11-10(a)

In a failure-to-promote claim under Title VII, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) he was within a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position sought; (3) he was not promoted; and (4) the position he sought was filled by someone outside the protected class.

An employer may not deny a promotion because of sex; a claim based on circumstantial evidence uses the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Toni Horn v. City of Cleveland · filed 2017-01-05(a)(1)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual “because of such individual’s . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Because Horn relies on circumstantial evidence of discrimination, we apply the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973).

In a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, superior credentials alone do not show discrimination unless the gap is so great that no reasonable person could have chosen the selected candidate.

Shah v. MTA New York City Transit · filed 2017-04-13(a)(1)

The district court properly concluded that Shah had not shown that his credentials were so superior to those of the successful candidates that no reasonable person could have chosen the selected candidate over him for the job in question.

A plaintiff who did not apply for a promotion cannot establish a prima facie failure-to-promote claim unless an exception to the application requirement applies.

Williams v. VWR International, LLC · filed 2017-04-18(a)(1)

As the record shows, Williams did not actually apply for the position, and she is not able to show that an exception to the application requirement applies.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim can survive dismissal when the plaintiff alleges facts supporting a plausible inference of discrimination, including that the employer did not post the vacancy she sought.

Wheeler v. Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2017-06-14(a)(1)

But Wheeler’s Response pleads enough additional facts to save this claim from dismissal, and since she is proceeding pro se, the Court can consider those additional facts in deciding BNYs Motion.

In a race discrimination claim based on circumstantial evidence, an employer’s stated reasons for a promotion decision must be shown to be pretext for discrimination.

Brown v. Shelby County Board of Education · filed 2017-12-19(a)(1)

Plaintiff has failed to show that the Board’s articulated reasons were pretext for race discrimination; the district court granted properly the Board’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim based on a failure to promote to proceed when the hiring evidence could allow a reasonable jury to infer discriminatory intent.

Allison v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2018-01-18(a)(1)

Even more importantly, I cannot say as a matter of law that a reasonable jury could not draw an inference of discrimination from the optics of the hiring process.

An employer may rely on a candidate’s interim service as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for promotion in a sex discrimination claim.

Frazier v. City of Mobile, Alabama · filed 2018-02-01(a)(1)

However, there is nothing discriminatory about justifying the selection of someone on the basis of his or her interim service.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits promotion decisions based on race or national origin; a plaintiff challenging an employer’s stated reasons must show they are a pretext for discrimination.

Fraser v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. · filed 2018-05-04(a)

Here, Fraser did not show that J.C. Penney’s reasons for its decisions not to promote Fraser in either 2012 or 2013 were false or that the real reason was discrimination.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff can establish a prima facie Title VII discrimination case by showing that she was qualified, sought and was denied the promotion, and the employer filled the position with someone outside her protected class.

Wesley v. Austal USA, LLC · filed 2018-08-03(a)(1)

... the Court finds for the purpose of this summary judgment motion that Plaintiff has sufficiently supported a prima facie case.

A failure-to-promote claimant must show she was qualified for the position; successful performance in a lower position does not establish qualification for a higher one with different duties.

Salemi v. Colorado Public Employees · filed 2018-08-17(a)(1)

Successful performance at a lower position does not establish that an employee is qualified for a higher position even where there is some overlap between the duties of the lower and higher positions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows an employer to deny a promotion based on a lower test score when the employee has no evidence that the reason is pretextual.

Smith v. Georgia · filed 2018-10-02(a)(1)

A plaintiff’s lower promotional test score is a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting the plaintiff. And none of the plaintiffs has pointed to any evidence showing that proffered reason is pretextual. As a result, the district court properly granted summary judgment against Colson, Bradshaw, Johnson, and Smith on their claims for discriminatory failure to promote.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff must present evidence that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for race discrimination to survive summary judgment on that claim.

Martin v. Shelby County Board of Education · filed 2018-11-27(a)(1)

On this record, we simply cannot say that Marin has raised a genuine issue of fact that the Board’s proffered reason for not promoting her was both “false, and that discrimination was the real reason.” Brooks, 446 F.3d at 1163 (quotation omitted; emphasis in original). Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that Martin had failed to show a question of discriminatory intent.

A failure-to-promote claim under Section 2000e-2 requires circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination, and a proposed comparator must be similarly situated in material respects.

Rodriguez v. Elon University · filed 2018-11-30

Additionally, the professor who received a promotion whom Rodriguez alleges was less qualified than him was not a tenure-track professor and thus does not qualify as an adequate comparator.

Evidence that an employer’s stated reason for denying a promotion was pretext can create a triable discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Weil v. Citizens Telecom Services Co. · filed 2019-04-29(a)(1)

Because Weil met his burden of producing evidence of pretext and creating a genuine dispute of material fact, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Weil’s failure-to-promote claim.

When an employer denies a promotion applicant an interview, the pretext inquiry focuses on whether its stated reasons for denying the interview are worthy of belief.

Sasser v. Salt Lake City Corporation · filed 2019-05-20(a)(1)

Instead, because the City’s decision not to interview Sasser “effectively operated as a decision not to hire [him],” the inquiry centers on whether the City’s “stated reasons for failing to give [Sasser] an interview may be unworthy of belief.” See id. at 1250–51.

In a failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff must prove that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Craig D. Lawrence, Sr., Ph.D. v. Dr. Perry W. Ward · filed 2019-05-21(a)(1)

These claims include a failure-to-promote claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), the only claim that is at issue here. ... We affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendants because Lawrence has failed to prove that Defendants’ reason for not promoting him was pretextual, as is required under McDonnell Douglas.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits an employer to rely on interview performance when making promotion decisions; subjective scoring alone does not establish racial discrimination.

Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. · filed 2019-06-17(a)(1)

Even though the scoring of the answers appears subjective in some areas, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find racial discrimination.

A failure-to-promote claimant must apply for the position or show that the employer considered candidates who did not apply.

Tompkins v. Cuts By Us, Inc. · filed 2019-07-26(a)

In light of Tompkins failure to apply or present evidence that Kleinman interviewed persons for this vacancy who did not apply or express an interest to him, her claim for this position fails.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits religious discrimination in promotions, but a general interest in management does not satisfy the application requirement for a failure-to-promote claim.

Douglass Bolden, II v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC · filed 2019-08-28(a)

Plaintiff’s evidence shows he expressed only a general interest in a manager position, and such a showing is not enough to meet the application requirement when applying for a management position.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim based on male comparators must allege facts about their qualifications sufficient to show they were similarly situated to the plaintiff.

Smith v. Factory Direct Enterprises LLC · filed 2019-09-05(a)(1)

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants promoted less or equally qualified male employees to senior sales manager at other locations, but provides no facts regarding the relative qualifications of the comparators. Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether the Plaintiff is similarly situated to the male employees who received promotions.

A plaintiff pursuing a race-based failure-to-promote claim under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) must show that he was qualified for the position.

Dabney, Sr. v. Illinois Department of Natural Resources · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1)

In order to show a prima facie case, Dabney needed to establish with sufficient evidence that he was qualified for the Site Superintendent II position. But Dabney failed to present sufficient evidence that he was qualified and instead only offered unsupported statements that the IDNR hires people without eligible grades.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race or national-origin failure-to-promote claim to proceed when a reasonable factfinder could find the employer’s stated reasons pretextual.

Thomas v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2019-12-04(a)(1)

From this, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that WMATA’s stated reasons for not selecting Thomas were pretext for racial and national origin discrimination. Accordingly, WMATA’s motion for summary judgment is denied as to Counts I and II.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to plausibly allege qualification for the position and a denial because of a protected trait.

Fleurentin v. Kings County Hospital Center · filed 2020-01-03(a)(1)

Yet even if they were timely, the amended complaint does not adequately plead two of the remaining elements of a failure to promote claim: that the plaintiff was qualified for the promotions he requested or that the defendants failed to promote the plaintiff because of his race, color, or national origin.