42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an actual promotion of another employee; assigning additional duties to an existing manager does not suffice.

McDade v. Alabama Department of Transportation · filed 2020-01-24(a)(1)

McDade, however, cannot complain of a failure to promote when no employee was promoted.

For a sex-based failure-to-promote claim, comparable credentials and experience can support a finding that the plaintiff and the selected applicant were similarly qualified.

Goodsite v. Board of Education of the Norwalk City School District · filed 2020-03-02(a)(1)

Because the two possessed comparable educational credentials and experience, there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude they were similarly qualified for the position at the prima facie stage.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a discrimination claim based on a denied promotion without requiring the employee to suffer embarrassment or humiliation.

Hu v. K4 Solutions, Inc · filed 2020-03-12(a)

Title VII and the DCHRA prohibit discriminatory employment practices based on an employee’s race, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a); D.C. Code § 2–1402.11. ... There is no requirement that the plaintiff suffer embarrassment or humiliation. Hu alleges that K4 denied her promotion to supervisor, after initially making an offer, because she did not “speak more like an American” and the supervisor expressed a preference for white males. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) This is enough to state an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits an employer from denying a promotion for racially discriminatory reasons.

POUNCEY v. GUILFORD COUNTY · filed 2020-03-17(a)(1)

Under that provision, it is unlawful for an employer to not promote an employee for racially discriminatory reasons.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) bars sex discrimination in promotions; a failure-to-promote claim requires evidence that the employer selected someone outside the protected class who was not better qualified.

RIVERS v. GOODWILL OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN INDIANA, INC. · filed 2020-03-30(a)(1)

Thus, Rivers has not met her burden of offering evidence to show that Sears was not better qualified for the senior director position. Because Rivers cannot establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination the Court grants Goodwill’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to her claim for gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.

A failure-to-promote claim under Title VII generally requires the employee to have applied for the position.

Little v. Illinois Department Of Public Health · filed 2020-03-31(a)

Generally, when a plaintiff has not applied for a position, she cannot prevail on a claim that she was discriminatorily passed over for that position.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race discrimination claim based on a denied promotion to proceed when evidence could support an inference that race influenced the decision.

James v. Quanta Services, Inc. · filed 2020-06-01(a)(1)

Viewing this incident against the backdrop of the evidence of pretext discussed above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has presented evidence that could support the inference that race-based discriminatory animus played a role in Defendants’ decision to deny Plaintiff the promotion.

A failure-to-promote sex discrimination claim fails when the employee cannot create a genuine dispute that the employer’s stated reason for choosing another candidate was pretextual.

Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC · filed 2020-06-11(a)(1)

Because Gibson has failed to create a genuine dispute regarding MGM’s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring Weldon and Davis over Gibson, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to MGM.

A plaintiff challenging a denied promotion under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must show that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for sex discrimination; a favorable readiness rating alone is insufficient.

Pittman v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. · filed 2020-06-12(a)(1)

We conclude that Pittman has failed to demonstrate that JJVC’s explanation for not promoting her to the Vice President position was pretextual.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race-based promotion decisions; a plaintiff must offer evidence that race caused the denial to survive summary judgment.

CARTER v. NJ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2020-06-23(a)(1)

However, there is no evidence, either alone or in combination with other evidence, offered by Plaintiff, that Defendant failed to promote him because of his race. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to Plaintiff’s failure to promote claim.

For a race discrimination claim based on a denied promotion, the employee must show that the employer’s stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

Sprowl v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. · filed 2020-07-07(a)

The fact that these candidates were white while Sprowl was black does not refute the legitimate differences the employer perceived between the candidates, especially because other white candidates who had similar reviews to Sprowl were also rejected. ... Thus, both Sprowl’s retaliation claim and racial discrimination claim fail.

A race discrimination claim based on failure to promote requires the employee to be qualified for the position; lacking the required supervisory experience or its equivalent defeats the prima facie case.

Demps v. Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court · filed 2020-07-13(a)(1)

There is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff was not qualified for the Court Manager position because she did not have the requisite supervisory experience or equivalent education and experience. As such, she did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination and further inquiry was not required.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie race discrimination case for a position filled by someone in the same protected class.

Phillips v. Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc. · filed 2004-04-07(a)

However, Phillips cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination with respect to the Assistant Manager position to which Griffin was hired because Griffin, an African-American, is not outside of Phillips’ protected class.

Section 2000e-2 permits a plaintiff to establish a prima facie sex discrimination claim based on a denied promotion.

Alsip v. Charter Communications, Inc. · filed 2020-08-31(a)(1)

The Court finds Alsip demonstrates a prima facie case of a failure to promote based on gender pursuant to McDonnell Douglas.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim cannot proceed when no position was open and the employer selected no one else over the plaintiff.

Thomas v. Great Lakes Water Authority · filed 2020-09-21(a)

There was no open position to which he applied. Therefore, he cannot sustain a theory of liability based on a failure to promote where no other individual was selected over Thomas at the time his request for a promotion was denied.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits national-origin discrimination in promotions, but an applicant’s unsupported belief that he was more qualified does not establish a discrimination claim.

GEORGE v. INDIANA GAMING COMMISSION · filed 2020-09-24(a)(1)

George's assertions that he was more qualified than the selected individuals for each position are unsupported and are contradicted by the evidence before the Court, and his personal beliefs are not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim requires evidence that similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s protected class were promoted over him.

Baird v. Iris Inc USA · filed 2020-09-25(a)

The plaintiff has failed to meet his initial burden of showing that similarly situated non- African Americans were promoted over him.

A plaintiff claiming discriminatory failure to promote must show that he was qualified for the promotion.

Baum v. Boeing (China) Co., Ltd. · filed 2020-09-28(a)(1)

To succeed on his claim that Boeing China terminated his employment due to his race or national origin, Baum must produce evidence showing that he was meeting Boeing’s legitimate expectations; for his failure to promote claim, Baum must show that he was qualified for the promotion sought.

Two male selections from only two promotion vacancies, without more, do not support an inference of sex discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Champion v. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation · filed 2020-11-04(a)(1)

In light of the sparse number of vacancies (two), the fact that the person promoted to each was male is insufficient, without more,to give rise to a generalized inference of gender discrimination in promotions on which Champion may draw in challenge the decisions adverse to her.

A denied promotion to an available position can be an adverse employment action under Title VII.

Chambers v. Sebelius · filed 2013-12-31(a)(1)

The failure to exercise this authority to promote a plaintiff in a protected class thus can constitute an adverse employment action actionable in an employment discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not support a failure-to-promote race discrimination claim for positions the employee did not apply for.

REAVES v. MAXIMUS INC. · filed 2021-01-26(a)(1)

Ms. Reaves did not apply for the training manager position or the data entry management position, so any failure to promote her to those positions cannot form the basis for a race discrimination claim.

A sex discrimination claim for failure to promote can survive summary judgment when the evidence raises a factual dispute over whether the plaintiff was clearly more qualified than the selected candidate.

Birchfield v. City of West Point, Mississippi · filed 2021-01-27(a)(1)

As noted above, Birchfield has come forward with sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment as to whether he was clearly more qualified for the position than Ross. And, while the statements are potentially damaging to his claim, the determination as to the weight to give them is better left to the jury at trial, as opposed to this Court at the summary judgment stage. The Court rejects the City’s argument that these statements, without more, are dispositive of Birchfield’s Title VII failure to promote claim. Summary judgment is therefore denied on that claim.

A race-based failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) needs facts identifying a specific position the employee sought; general allegations of being overlooked for promotions are insufficient.

Jackson v. State of Maryland · filed 2021-03-10(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s general and conclusory allegations fail to state a claim. First, she has not alleged there was a specific position for which she applied.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a failure-to-promote claim to proceed when the plaintiff plausibly alleges that the position was filled by someone outside his protected class.

Bandyopadhyay v. State University of New York · filed 2021-03-30(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff alleges both that the position remained open after he went through the interview process, and that the position was eventually filled by someone outside of his protected class. He has therefore satisfied the minimal burden at this stage of alleging that the denial of his promotion to Dean was discriminatory.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits summary judgment on a discriminatory failure-to-promote claim when no reasonable juror could find that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Hernandez v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball · filed 2021-03-31(a)(1)

The Court concludes that no reasonable juror could find that MLB’s stated explanation is a pretext for discriminatory motive.

A failure-to-promote plaintiff must show circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie disparate-treatment claim.

Heckstall v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2021-04-01(a)(1)

Heckstall has not met his burden, however, of showing that the failure to promote him in 2018 occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A factual dispute about pretext allowed a Title VII race discrimination failure-to-promote claim to continue.

Gorbe v. Lathrup Village, City of · filed 2021-03-31(a)(1)

finds there is a question of fact as to pretext.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) supports a national origin failure-to-promote claim when a qualified applicant alleges rejection in favor of similarly qualified applicants of another national origin.

Plesha v. Wolf · filed 2021-04-30(a)(1)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown that: (1) Mr. Plesha is of Croatian nationality, a protected class; (2) was qualified for the open SDDO positions that he applied due to his nine years of experience as a deportation officer; (3) was rejected from the same; (4) in favor of native deportation officers.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a) fails when the employee cannot show that the employer’s stated reason for denying promotion was a pretext for discrimination.

Parra v. City of Toledo, Ohio · filed 2021-05-17(a)

Parra alleges Defendants discriminated against him by failing to promote him, and also subjected him to disparate treatment, on the basis of his national origin or ethnicity, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(A), and Ohio Revised Code. § 4112.02. ... I conclude Parra has not identified a genuine issue of material fact concerning his discrimination claims from which a reasonable jury could rule in his favor.

In a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, an employer relying on a subjective assessment must give a clear and reasonably specific factual basis for it to satisfy its burden of offering a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.

Simmons v. Washington County Board of Education · filed 2021-05-19

In the Court’s view, defendant’s showing falls short of the “clear and reasonably specific factual basis” required by Chapman and its progeny. As such, because the Board has tethered its hiring decision to a subjective reason for which the requisite clear and reasonably specific factual basis has not been provided, the Court concludes that the Board has failed to satisfy its burden of coming forward with a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged personnel action.

A failure-to-promote claim requires facts supporting a reasonable inference that the applicant was rejected because of a protected characteristic; protected status and nonselection alone are insufficient.

Laurent-Workman v. McCarthy · filed 2021-06-11(a)

And while her allegations that she applied for the vacant position and was not selected by individuals of different races, genders or national origins are necessary allegations, they are, by themselves, insufficient to plausibly allege that she was not selected because of her race, gender, or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotions; an employer’s legitimate reason defeats a claim when the applicant fails to show it is a pretext for discrimination.

Prince v. City of Northport, Alabama · filed 2021-06-25(a)(1)

Accordingly, Prince has failed to demonstrate that Northport’s reasons for failing to promote him were pretextual; therefore, Northport’s motion is due to be granted on Prince’s race discrimination claim.

A Title VII sex discrimination claim based on a failure to promote follows the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework when the plaintiff presents no direct evidence of discrimination.

Grigsby v. Pulaski County Special School District · filed 2021-07-14(a)(1)

Ms. Grigsby has not presented any direct evidence of sex discrimination in PCSSD’s hiring process. Thus, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies.

Section 2000e-2 requires evidence supporting an inference of race discrimination in a failure-to-promote claim; selecting an applicant of the same race did not support that inference here.

Miller v. McWilliams · filed 2021-07-28

Because the selectee shared Mr. Miller’s race, Mr. Miller was not “rejected for the position under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.”

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

Jackson v. Haines City, Florida · filed 2021-07-30(a)

Here, the City had no reason to consider Jackson for Maintenance Division Supervisor because he was not qualified for the job.

A plaintiff claiming discriminatory failure to promote must identify specific promotion opportunities he would have sought, even if applying would have been futile.

Hunt v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · filed 2021-08-09(a)(1)

However, Plaintiff must still allege specific promotion opportunities that he would have sought had application not been futile.

A failure to promote or reclassify claim requires evidence that the employee applied, made every reasonable effort to apply, was deterred by discriminatory practices, or reasonably believed applying would be futile.

FRANKOVICH v. PITTSBURGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 2021-08-23(a)(1)

Whether seeking promotion or reclassification, to establish the “adverse employment action” element, a plaintiff must point to evidence that she either (1) applied for the job; (2) made every reasonable effort to convey her interest in the job to her employer; (3) was deterred from applying by the employer’s discriminatory practices and would have applied but for those practices; or (4) had a genuine and real interest in the job but reasonably believed that formally applying would be futile.

A failure-to-promote discrimination claim requires the employee to show that she was qualified for the position.

Jones v. DeJoy · filed 2021-09-03(a)(1)

Jones has failed to show she was qualified to be promoted to Plant Manager.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim requires proof that the plaintiff applied for the position in question.

Goods v. Baltimore City Department of Transportation- Information Technology Division · filed 2021-09-08(a)(1)

Accordingly, as to the positions posted in the summer of 2018, Goods cannot show that he “applied for the position[s] in question,” which is a necessary element of his failure to promote claim.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim requires a denied promotion; an employee who never applied for one cannot establish that adverse employment action.

Washington Day v. Emily Murphy, Administrator · filed 2021-09-15(a)(1)

Thus, while the denial of a promotion certainly constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII, Day did not suffer any such denial.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discriminatory employment decisions, but a plaintiff cannot prevail when the employer gives a legitimate reason and the plaintiff offers no evidence that the reason is pretextual.

Haughton v. Cromwell · filed 2021-09-17(a)(1)

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual because of that individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. ... I conclude that Haughton has made out a prima face case of discrimination, but that the defendants have offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their decision not to give him the detective special assignment, and that Haughton has failed to present evidence that this reason was pretextual.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2 cannot survive summary judgment without evidence from which a reasonable jury could find discrimination under a but-for or mixed-motive theory.

Tyes-Williams v. Sessions · filed 2021-09-20

Thus, for all the above reasons, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury could not conclude that Williams was the victim of a discriminatory non-selection, under either a but-for or mixed-motive theory.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff relying on comparators to show that the selected applicants were similarly situated; meeting the same minimum qualifications alone is insufficient.

Kent v. Ohio Department of Youth Services · filed 2021-09-21(a)

Thus, though all three candidates were at least minimally qualified for the Management positions, it cannot be said that they were similarly situated. Ms. Kent has not established that she was rejected in favor of similarly situated applicants outside her protected class and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race-based employment discrimination, including a denied promotion motivated by race.

COOPER v. CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. · filed 2021-09-30(a)

The Court also holds that a reasonable jury could believe that Cooper’s race was more likely than not a motivating factor in Cooper being denied a promotion to full-time status.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show a vacant position for which he was qualified and applied, and a rejection under circumstances suggesting race discrimination.

Adams v. 3D Systems Inc · filed 2021-09-30(a)(1)

Upon its consideration of the foregoing, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote because the evidence of record does not demonstrate that there was a vacant position that he was qualified for, he applied for, and was rejected under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination based on race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) bars an employer from denying a promotion because of race, including when decisionmakers act on coworkers’ racial attitudes.

CHAMBERS v. WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2021-11-03(a)(1)

There is, therefore, a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the committee denied Plaintiff’s promotion because of his race and the racial attitudes of his coworkers.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim requires an open position for which the employer was seeking applicants.

CLAIBORNE v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY · filed 2021-11-15(a)(1)

As such, Mr. Claiborne does not meet the second factor required to prove a prima facie case of discrimination – that he applied for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits national-origin discrimination in promotion decisions; a plaintiff must present evidence that the decisionmakers acted with discriminatory intent.

Din v. Montgomery County, Maryland · filed 2022-01-03(a)

Here, the record simply lacks “any significant probative evidence” tending to support the claim that the decisionmakers acted with discriminatory intent in failing to select Din for the Program Specialist II position.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim requires evidence that a similarly qualified person outside the protected class received the promotion.

Wood v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-01-07(a)(1)

Among other things, Wood fails to establish who received the positions instead of her or that those individuals had similar qualifications, and she is incorrect that MDOC does not dispute that she was qualified for the positions.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits race discrimination in promotions; concealing a vacancy from a qualified employee can support an inference that an employer’s stated reasons for passing over that employee were pretextual.

Harris v. City of Providence · filed 2022-02-23(a)(1)

The Court finds from this record that a jury could infer that the City did not want My. Harris to know about the Plan Examiner position and acted to prevent him from applying for the promotion. The City’s defense that Mr. Harris did not apply or was less qualified was a pretext for illegal discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence from which a jury could find that an employer’s stated reason for denying a promotion was a pretext for sex discrimination.

BROWN v. AMETEK, INC. · filed 2022-03-10(a)(1)

After a full opportunity for discovery, there is nothing more than speculation that Brown was not promoted because she is a woman.

In a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, an employer can meet its burden to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason by relying on a police chief’s recommendation.

Martinez v. Stamford · filed 2022-03-17(a)(1)

The Commission’s reliance on the Chief’s recommendation constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to promote Comstock and Malanga rather than Martinez.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers discriminatory failure to promote; evidence that an employer made exceptions to its promotion policy can create a factual dispute about an applicant’s qualifications and discriminatory motive.

Atencia v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-03-29(a)(1)

Although Defendants argue the severity and recency of Atencia’s violations render him unqualified for a Policy GC-12 waiver (Doc. 90 at 7), viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Atencia, the Court finds a dispute of material fact regarding whether Atencia was qualified for promotion by exception from Policy GC-12 and whether the non-promotion was the result of discrimination.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim can survive a motion to dismiss without pleading a prima facie case if the allegations plausibly support an inference of race discrimination.

McDowell v. Alabama Department of Public Health (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-31(a)(1)

Further, he is not required at this stage to establish a prima facie case. The allegations, albeit spare, are sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss and allow the failure to promote claims to proceed.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race-based failure-to-promote claim to proceed when the applicant alleges facts supporting an inference of discrimination and pretext.

Miller v. Nash County Department of Social Services · filed 2022-03-31(a)(1)

Miller’s claim of pretext is not implausible. ... Nash County’s motion to dismiss Miller’s Title VII claim is denied.

A race discrimination claim based on a failure to promote can survive summary judgment when evidence creates a genuine dispute over whether the employer’s stated reason for its decision was pretextual.

Buck v. Secretary of Navy, Dept. of Navy · filed 2022-05-12(a)(1)

Where Buck has submitted evidence that Rose provided a false explanation for the hiring of Conn and that significantly undermines several of the asserted reasons for favoring Conn, he has identified genuine issues of material fact on the issue of whether the stated reasons for hiring Conn were pretextual.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a) requires evidence that the employee applied for and was rejected from an open position and that an equally or less qualified person outside the protected class received it.

Sumbak v. Eaton Corporation · filed 2022-06-06(a)

The district court did not plainly err by holding that Sumbak did not establish a prima facie case because he failed to produce evidence showing that he applied for and was rejected from an open SG40 position, or that another equally or less qualified employee who was not a member of the protected class was promoted to such a position.

A plaintiff alleging a race-based failure to promote must use the McDonnell Douglas framework when he has no direct evidence of discrimination.

Stevens v. Charles County, Maryland · filed 2022-06-30(a)(1)

Stevens alleges no direct evidence that the failure to promote him was the result of race discrimination. He therefore must establish his case through the McDonnell Douglas framework.

A store’s location in a predominantly white area, by itself, does not show that an employer’s stated reason for promoting another candidate was a pretext for race discrimination.

Murry v. Walmart Stores Inc · filed 2022-07-22(a)(1)

That evidence alone cannot overcome Walmart’s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for selecting Mr. Franklin over Mr. Murry.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race and national-origin discrimination in promotion decisions; a rejected applicant must show that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Ogunwole v. Raimondo · filed 2022-07-22(a)(1)

Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against “any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of her race or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). ... Thus, when viewing the record as a whole and most favorably to Dr. Ogunwole, she has not raised a genuine issue of material fact on the question of pretext. Summary judgment must be granted in the Agency’s favor on all claims.

A race or color discrimination plaintiff can establish a prima facie failure-to-promote claim by showing that she was similarly qualified to the selected candidate.

Cranfield v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2022-08-10(a)(1)

As discussed below, Cranfield offers evidence to show that she was similarly ... qualified as the chosen candidate for three of the four positions and therefore, establishes a prima facie case for discrimination for these three occasions where she was passed over for the refund cashier position.

A failure-to-promote claim under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) cannot survive summary judgment without evidence that the promotion decision was discriminatory.

KELLY v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PHDC) · filed 2022-08-11(a)(1)

Plaintiff identifies no evidence in the record to suggest that any delay was discriminatory.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee claiming race-based failure to promote to have applied for an available position.

Ward v. Arkansas Children's Hospital · filed 2022-08-18(a)(1)

Ms. Ward cannot establish (even for purposes of summary judgment) a prima facie case for failure to promote based on race because she cannot show that she applied for an available position.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a failure-to-promote sex discrimination claim to allege facts plausibly connecting the denied promotion to the plaintiff’s sex.

Luciano v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2022-09-09(a)

Missing from Plaintiff’s FAC is a key factual allegation needed to support the reasonable inference that he was denied the promotion on account of his sex—that a female received the position instead.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotion decisions; an employer’s legitimate reason defeats a failure-to-promote claim when the applicant offers no evidence of pretext.

STEVENS v. CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2022-09-30(a)(1)

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff claims she was not selected for the Cafeteria Assistant II (5.5 hour) position because of her race, such claim does not survive Defendant’s summary judgment motion.

A Title VII failure-to-promote complaint must allege facts supporting the plaintiff’s qualification for the position.

Jenkins v. City of Dallas · filed 2022-10-06(a)(1)

The Court finds that Jenkins has failed to plead that he was qualified for the position at issue.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits sex discrimination in promotion decisions, but a failure-to-promote claim cannot survive summary judgment when the applicant fails to show that the employer's stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.

Nash v. State of Maine · filed 2022-10-17(a)

While Nash has generated some disputes of fact, the Court finds that Nash has failed to generate a genuine issue of material fact that the reasons articulated for Nash's not being hired were pretext for discriminatory animus.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits sex discrimination in employment; a failure-to-promote claimant can establish a prima facie case by showing she was qualified and similarly qualified employees outside her protected class were promoted.

Varner v. General Motors LLC · filed 2022-10-21(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII based on a failure to promote, Ms. Varner must show: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied and was qualified for the promotion; (3) she was considered for and denied the promotion; and (4) other employees of similar qualifications who were not members of the protected class received promotions.

A Title VII failure-to-promote plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing that she belongs to a protected class, applied for and was qualified for the position, was rejected, and the employer filled the position with someone outside her class.

Moss v. St Vincent's Health System · filed 2022-10-25(a)(1)

Moss has established a prima facie case of discrimination. She is a member of a protected class, applied for the promotion and was rejected despite her qualifications, and the position was filled by a person outside of her class.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim generally requires facts showing that the employee applied for a promotion and was denied, unless applying would have been futile.

Newell v. Acadiana Planning Commission Inc · filed 2022-10-25(a)(1)

In sum, the lack of any factual allegations showing that Newell applied for a promotion and was denied is fatal to her promotion-related claims.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) covers discriminatory failure to promote, and denial of a promotion can be an adverse employment action.

Lockett v. Target Corporation · filed 2022-11-22(a)(1)

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... The Court disagrees with Defendant and, therefore, denies Defendant’s request for summary judgment on Count Five.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits race discrimination in promotions, but an employer is entitled to summary judgment when the employee cannot rebut its stated nondiscriminatory reasons for choosing another candidate.

White v. US Pipe · filed 2022-12-01

Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law as to Plaintiff’s failure to promote claim, whether that claim is premised upon race or protected activity.

Evidence undermining an employer’s stated reasons for denying a promotion can create a genuine dispute of pretext that defeats summary judgment on a sex discrimination claim under Title VII.

Brown v. Ametek Inc · filed 2022-12-07(a)(1)

In short, if a factfinder accepted the facts as Brown presents them, then it could conclude that offloading the audits had no effect on her promotion potential and that she contributed to other projects, thus undercutting the truth of AMETEK’s justifications for not promoting her. Accordingly, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that AMETEK’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff to show that she applied for and was qualified for the position; an application submitted after the deadline does not satisfy that burden.

James v. Harlandale Independent School District · filed 2022-12-09(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff has not proffered evidence showing that she applied and was qualified for a position for which applicants were being sought, she has not met her prima facie burden. The burden of production therefore does not shift to Defendant under McDonnell Douglas and the Court’s analysis ends here. Plaintiff’s claim for sex discrimination under Title VII fails as a matter of law.

A qualified employee states a Title VII failure-to-promote claim at the pleading stage by alleging that the employer promoted a less qualified person outside the employee’s protected class.

Lebron v. Social Services · filed 2023-01-13(a)(1)

Given the “exceedingly low burden” required of plaintiffs at the pleading stage, see Dawson v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 624 F. App’x 763, 770 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order), Mr. Lebron’s allegations are sufficient to state a Title VII claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging discriminatory failure to promote or hire to identify a specific position and plead facts supporting an inference of discrimination.

Hollington v. CDM Federal Programs Corporation · filed 2023-03-10(a)(1)

To make out a failure to promote or hire claim under § 1981 and Title VII, Hollington must demonstrate that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he applied and was qualified for a job for which CDM was seeking applicants; (3) he was rejected despite being qualified; and (4) after this rejection, the position remained open and CDM continued to seek applicants with Hollington’s qualifications.

In a sex-discrimination failure-to-promote claim, a plaintiff must show that the employer’s stated reason for selecting another applicant was pretext for discrimination.

Alston v. State of Maryland Department of Health · filed 2023-03-21(a)(1)

Here, Alston has failed to identify genuine issues of material fact on the issue of pretext.

A failure-to-promote race discrimination claim may proceed when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find that race influenced the employer’s decision.

Pinn v. State of Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services · filed 2023-03-27(a)(1)

But reading the facts in Plaintiff’s favor, he has produced sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that Department refused to promote him because of age or race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotion decisions, but an employer is entitled to summary judgment when the applicant fails to show that its legitimate reason for selecting another candidate was pretextual.

DIAL v. ROBESON COUNTY · filed 2023-03-27(a)(1)

Here, although Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, Defendant provides a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for promoting Hill over Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff does not demonstrate that Defendant’s articulated reason was pretext for unlawful discrimination. Thus, this court will grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

A qualified applicant establishes a prima facie failure-to-promote claim when the employer rejects her and selects someone outside her protected class.

Rapp v. Esper · filed 2023-03-28(a)(1)

Plaintiff easily meets her burden of establishing a prima facie case. Plaintiff, an African American woman, is a member of a protected class, she applied and was qualified for the position of Supervisory Contract Specialist, she was rejected for the position, and the position went to Cokic, a Caucasian woman.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not require a court to judge the wisdom of a hiring decision if the employer genuinely made it for the stated reason.

Kroboth v. Eli Lilly and Company · filed 2023-03-29(a)(1)

It is not the court’s province to decide whether Corbin’s strategy was in fact compelling, or to determine whether her strategy was a proper basis on which to make a hiring decision, so long as it truly was Rimolt’s reason for hiring her.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race or sex discrimination in employment; a failure-to-promote claim must allege facts supporting a plausible inference of discrimination.

BOONE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION · filed 2023-03-31(a)(1)

Similarly, Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, . . . [or] sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... Here, Plaintiff offers only conclusory statements that speculate on why Plaintiff was not selected for the IMS position, and Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to plausibly allege that the reason she was not promoted to IMS Associate was because of her race, sex, or age.

Evidence that a rejected applicant was significantly better qualified can create a triable question whether an employer’s stated promotion reasons were pretext for race discrimination.

Levine v. DeJoy · filed 2023-04-10(a)(1)

Accordingly, we hold that Levine met her “burden of producing enough evidence to convince a reasonable jury that [USPS’s] proffered reasons for not promoting [her] may have been a mere pretext for racial discrimination, and thus, [USPS] is not entitled to summary judgment on [Levine’s] failure to promote claim.” Id.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must plausibly connect the denied promotion to the employee’s race or sex.

Jenkins v. City of Dallas · filed 2023-05-17(a)(1)

These conclusory allegations are insufficient to suggest the City’s decision to not promote Jenkins seven years later was based on his race. ... Further, Jenkins makes no allegations suggesting the City or Curry ever discriminated against him because of his gender.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a rejected application; a delayed offer that the employee ultimately rejects does not establish that element.

Mitchell v. ATI Industrial Automation, Inc. · filed 2023-07-12(a)(1)

Mitchell cannot meet the fourth prong. Her application was not rejected, it was delayed. On August 31, 2020, Mitchell learned that Sinning had been offered the position. That same day, ATI told Mitchell about their plan to create a second calibration technician specifically for her. ATI assured her she would not have to reapply — the position was hers. Mitchell began training, but when ATI formally offered Mitchell the position, she rejected it.

Section 2000e-2 allows a sex discrimination failure-to-promote claim to proceed when the employer fails to give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision.

Loyd v. Ruston · filed 2023-07-26(a)(1)

The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden of proving a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not transferring Loyd to CID.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a discrimination claim based on a denied promotion to proceed when the evidence could allow a jury to find discriminatory intent.

Mochu v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. · filed 2023-08-02(a)(1)

Given this tension, the Court denies summary judgment on Mochu’s claims for Title VII discrimination, though that claim is limited to the decision to deny Mochu a promotion to technical specialist in 2022.

A failure-to-promote claim under Title VII fails at the pretext stage when the selected candidates were at least as qualified and the plaintiff shows no impermissible promotion criteria.

Carr v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2023-08-07(a)(1)

We agree. The NYCTA adduced evidence that DiLorenzo or Chan were equally, if not more, qualified for the positions than Carr, and there is no allegation that any impermissible promotion criteria were used.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting a plausible inference that an employer denied a promotion because of the employee’s race or sex.

BOONE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION · filed 2023-08-25(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s allegations as to any discriminatory treatment are merely conclusory statements. At most, Plaintiff alleges that she is a sixty-two-year-old Black female and that the individuals in the IMS position were younger and White. While Plaintiff provided factual allegations concerning her experiences and certifications, those facts standing alone provide no basis for which to infer a discriminatory intent sufficient to plausibly allege an adverse employment action due to discrimination.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim requires a prima facie case and evidence that could permit a reasonable factfinder to find the employer’s stated reason pretextual.

Miller v. McWilliams · filed 2023-09-07

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Miller failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on race or EEO activity and that, even if we were to assume he established a prima facie case of discrimination based on age, sex, or disability, he did not show that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Defendants’ legitimate reasons for selecting another candidate for the promotion were pretextual.

A failure-to-promote claim can proceed when the employee did not express interest in the position if the employer had no application process and did not require an expression of interest.

Sughayer v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-09-29(a)(1)

Expressing interest to Huber was not a “requirement” for consideration. [47] ¶ 14. And the Court declines to grant summary judgment in MB’s favor on this basis.

A failure-to-promote race discrimination claim requires the employee to show that she was qualified for the position.

White v. Keesler Federal Credit Union · filed 2023-09-29(a)(1)

While White had worked in many positions at Keesler (she began as a teller in 2010), she did not have the required ten years of project management experience for the Director position.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), an applicant’s failure to pass a qualifications interview can satisfy an employer’s burden to state a nondiscriminatory reason for denying a promotion.

Redd-Oyedele v. Santa Clara County Office of Education · filed 2023-10-26(a)(1)

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Redd- Oyedele’s race discrimination claim. SCCOE adequately articulated a non- discriminatory reason for not promoting Redd-Oyedele—namely, that she did not receive a passing score in her Qualifications Appraisal Interview.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits promotion decisions based on race or sex; favoritism based on personal relationships does not establish discrimination.

Lewis v. McDonough · filed 2023-11-28(a)(1)

Lewis’s case lacks any proof of discrimination. Instead, her evidence supports an allegation of cronyism. And though cronyism is unseemly and concerning, it does not violate Title VII. ... Title VII forbids discrimination. And no reasonable jury could find that the Secretary denied Lewis a promotion because of her race or sex.

An employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a promotion decision defeats a race discrimination claim when the employee lacks sufficient evidence of pretext.

GLAESENER v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-11-30(a)(1)

But even if Plaintiff has made a prima facie case of discrimination, she fails to proffer sufficient evidence to show that Defendants’ legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their promotion decisions were pretextual.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an application or facts showing that discrimination made applying futile, along with facts supporting a discriminatory motive.

Eliav v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation · filed 2024-01-18(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff did not apply for the DGC position and alleges no facts from which the Court can infer that Defendants set the job requirements for the DGC position to exclude Plaintiff from consideration on account of his religion or national origin, he has not stated a claim for failure to promote.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a failure-to-promote discrimination claim; a plaintiff challenging the employer’s stated reasons must present evidence of pretext, such as being clearly better qualified than the selected candidate.

Taylor v. Univ MS Med Ctr · filed 2024-02-09(a)(1)

So, Taylor must point to evidence suggesting he was clearly more qualified than Fleming or that UMMC’s proffered reasons for promoting her were clearly unworthy of belief. Deines, 164 F.3d at 279. He has not done so.

A race discrimination claim based on a denied promotion is plausible when an interviewer’s allegedly race-based ranking plausibly caused the denial.

Jenkins v. City of Dallas · filed 2024-02-13(a)(1)

Jenkins has adequately alleged that Curry gave him a lower ranking because of his race and that Jenkins was ultimately denied the December 2020 promotion because of this discriminatory ranking. Accordingly, Jenkins plausibly established that he was denied a promotion because of his race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not excuse a failure to apply for a promotion merely because the applicant lacks a posted qualification; the applicant must show evidence that applying would have been futile because of discrimination.

ROBINSON v. SHADYSIDE · filed 2024-02-22(a)(1)

But Robinson is conflating “futility” with “unqualified.” She has not cited to any evidence supporting an inference that ID Connect established the degree requirement to deprive her of a promotion due to her race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence from which a jury could infer that race motivated an employer’s promotion decision.

Ra v. Jimmie Hale Mission · filed 2024-02-29(a)(1)

Regardless of the method, Ra has not established a triable issue of Jimmie Hale’s discriminatory intent in the promotion decision.

After an employer offers a legitimate reason for a promotion, a plaintiff alleging race or sex discrimination must present evidence of pretext or discriminatory motive to survive summary judgment.

Lebron v. Social Services · filed 2024-03-08(a)(1)

Accordingly, because no jury could reasonably find that Mr. Lebron was denied the promotion on the basis of his race or gender, the Court will grant summary judgment to the DSS.

A failure-to-promote claim can satisfy the application requirement when discriminatory practices deter the applicant from completing later steps of the promotion process.

Pirela v. City of Aurora · filed 2024-03-18(a)(1)

The same concerns are implicated whether racial discrimination has deterred a candidate from submitting an application or from completing necessary prerequisites after an initial application is submitted.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim may proceed when alleged discrimination deterred an applicant from completing the promotion process.

Walls v. City of Aurora · filed 2024-03-18(a)(1)

The same concerns are implicated whether racial discrimination has deterred a candidate from submitting an application or from completing necessary prerequisites after an initial application is submitted.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a failure-to-promote discrimination claim to proceed when a jury could find that an employer’s selection process masked race or sex discrimination.

Clark v. Olin Corporation Winchester · filed 2024-03-20(a)(1)

Under the circumstances, a reasonable jury could find the decision not to post the general foreman position for an open application process at any time, despite Plaintiff’s noted desire to hold that position, and to instead rely upon subjective criteria to distinguish similarly qualified individuals, was a mask for discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits an employer from denying a promotion because of the employee’s sex.

Nadeem v. Viscosity Oil Company · filed 2024-03-26(a)(1)

For now, Jimenez’s purported coverup, and Viscosity’s use of Plaintiff even after the company hired Duda, suffice to get Plaintiff to a jury on her claim that Viscosity unlawfully failed to promote her because of her sex and that the company’s stated assessment of her relative qualifications constituted pretext.

For a failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework must show that the employer’s stated reason was false and that race discrimination was the true reason.

Patterson v. The City of Cape Coral, Florida · filed 2024-03-28(a)(1)

With nothing to suggest that Cautero’s stated reasons for not promoting him were false and that unlawful race discrimination was the true reason, Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden under McDonnell Douglas.

A Title VII failure-to-promote claim requires facts supporting an inference of discrimination; alleging that less qualified people were hired is insufficient without identifying their race or gender.

Harris v. The City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygene · filed 2024-03-28(a)(1)

That is, without identifying the race or gender or the purportedly less qualified individuals who were hired, Plaintiff cannot raise an inference of discrimination based on his qualifications alone.

A discriminatory failure-to-promote claim generally requires an application for the position; an employee may be excused if the vacancy was unposted and the employee either did not know of it before it was filled or tried to apply through informal procedures endorsed by the employer.

Jean-Giles v. Rockland County · filed 2024-03-29(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff did not submit any application for the position of Commissioner of Human Rights in 2017, and based on the facts and circumstances presented in the record, Plaintiff cannot be excused from the specific application requirement.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff’s qualifications to be assessed using objective job requirements at the prima facie stage; subjective criteria are considered later.

Golden v. McDonough · filed 2024-03-28(a)(1)

This kind of criteria requires judgment in reviewing a nurse’s application, such that the opinions of each member of the Nursing Board could differ, which makes them subjective.

In a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, a prima facie showing of sex discrimination shifts the burden to the employer to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision.

Mayfield v. Fudge · filed 2024-04-24(a)(1)

Consequently, under the McDonald Douglas framework, the Court finds that Mayfield satisfies the first step, and the burden shifts to Defendant to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting Mayfield to the ARC Litigation Position.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff pursuing a race discrimination claim based on a denied promotion through indirect evidence to show that the employer’s stated reasons were pretextual.

Wynn v. University of Toledo · filed 2024-06-07(a)(1)

Based on the evidence presented, Plaintiff has failed to show Defendant’s legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons for promoting Ziviski over Plaintiff were pretextual.

A failure-to-promote claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer intentional race discrimination.

Manning v. The Lutheran Foundation, Inc. · filed 2024-07-10(a)(1)

While there may be some evidence of “pretext,” there is no evidence of “pretext for discrimination” here.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff alleging failure to promote to plead that he was qualified and that more favorable treatment of a similarly situated applicant, or other circumstances, supports an inference of discrimination.

Smith v. State of Nevada, Department of Motor Vehicle Office · filed 2024-07-19(a)(1)

To make out a prima facie case of discrimination, Smith must allege that (1) he belongs to a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position for which he submitted an application, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a failure to promote to qualify as an adverse employment action in a disparate-treatment claim.

HAMLITON v. NORRISTOWN STATE HOSPITAL · filed 2024-08-01(a)(1)

More to the point, a failure to promote can constitute a Title VII disparate-treatment adverse action.

A Title VII plaintiff who establishes a prima facie race discrimination case must show that the employer’s stated reasons for denying a promotion were pretextual to avoid summary judgment.

GOWANS, III v. SEPTA · filed 2024-08-13(a)(1)

Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of demonstrating “such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them ‘unworthy of credence[.]’” Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765. Thus, the Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the Title VII claim of race discrimination is granted.

A plaintiff claiming discriminatory failure to hire or promote must show that she was qualified for the position and that the employer kept it open or filled it with someone outside her protected class.

McElrath v. Walker County Board of Education · filed 2024-08-14(a)(1)

In this context, McElrath must meet four elements to make out a prima facie case: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for, and was qualified to fill, a position for which the employer was accepting applications; (3) she did not receive the position despite her qualifications; and (4) after her rejection, the employer either kept the position open or filled it with a person outside of her protected class.

A plaintiff challenging a failure to promote under § 2000e-2(a) must prove that the employer’s stated reason was pretext for discrimination.

Jackson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 2024-07-31(a)

Based on the evidence at trial, Ms. Jackson has failed to prove pretext.

A plaintiff who disclaims comparator evidence cannot rely on the McDonnell Douglas framework to prove a Title VII failure-to-promote claim.

Williams v. City of Birmingham · filed 2024-08-26(a)(1)

Because Mr. Williams does not rely on comparator analysis and contends that the court need not perform a comparator analysis, he cannot rely on the McDonnell Douglas framework to survive the City’s motion.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a sex discrimination claim over a denied promotion to proceed when the combined evidence could let a reasonable jury find discriminatory intent.

Parlato v. East Haven · filed 2024-11-26(a)(1)

Plaintiff has put forth sufficient evidence, when taken in combination, from which a reasonable jury could conclude she was discriminated against because of her gender.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits an employer to rely on a sincere assessment that another candidate is better suited for a promotion; subjective assessments alone do not establish pretext.

Cunningham v. Lloyd Austin, III · filed 2025-01-03(a)(1)

That Hartz relied on subjective assessments to reach this conclusion does not render DFAS’s explanation illegitimate.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotions; a failure-to-promote complaint must plausibly allege that similarly situated people outside the protected group were promoted.

Perkins v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2025-01-29(a)(1)

But Perkins makes no mention of the race or ethnicity of any person who was selected for a position over him, nor does he allege any facts to support any allegation that they were similarly situated to him but not part of a protected group. That will not suffice.

A Title VII race discrimination claim based on a failure to select cannot establish a prima facie case when the selected candidate is in the plaintiff’s protected class.

Weber v. Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2025-03-21(a)(1)

However, a black woman, not someone outside of Plaintiff’s protected class, was selected for the Training Instructor for Employee Education GS-11 position. For this reason, Plaintiff cannot prove a prima facie case of race discrimination as it relates to his non-selection for the Training Instructor for Employee Education GS-11 position.

A qualified applicant who is denied a promotion in favor of someone outside his protected class can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under § 2000e-2(a).

Adkinson v. Phoenix Union High School District · filed 2025-03-31(a)

Thus far, Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that race or color caused a denied promotion; a neutrally applied tenure policy is a legitimate reason for denying it.

Buchanan v. Commonwealth Edison · filed 2025-03-31(a)(1)

ComEd's one-year policy, if applied neutrally, is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying Buchanan the promotion he sought.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a sex discrimination failure-to-promote claim to proceed when allegations of pretext plausibly support an inference of discrimination.

Bowen v. City and County of Denver, Denver Sheriff Department · filed 2025-04-14(a)(1)

Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual, . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to survive Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ... These are classic pretext allegations, and while allegations of pretext do not compel an inference of discrimination, they may support that inference.

A plaintiff claiming race discrimination in a failure to promote must produce evidence that he was qualified for the position.

DOVE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2025-04-16(a)(1)

Based on this evidence, no reasonable jury could find that Mr. Dove was qualified to be a Correctional Sergeant.

Section 2000e-2 requires a failure-to-promote plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework to show that she was qualified for the position to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination.

Brady v. Walmart Stores, Inc. · filed 2025-07-21

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination in employment, Brady would have to establish that “(1) she was a member of a protected group; (2) she was qualified to perform the job; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) circumstances permit an inference of discrimination.” Hester v. Dep’t of Treasury, 137 F.4th 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2025). Her prima facie case fails at the second prong, as she was not qualified for the support manager position.

An employer is entitled to summary judgment on a racial discrimination claim for failure to promote when the employee fails to rebut its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the decision.

Stelly v. Dept of Public Safety · filed 2025-08-15(a)(1)

Because Stelly has failed to rebut LSP’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing to promote him, LSP is entitled to summary judgment on Stelly’s Title VII claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a race discrimination claim for failure to promote to reach a jury when the evidence could support a finding that the employer’s explanation was pretextual.

McKenzie v. City of Columbus · filed 2025-09-02(a)(1)

Accordingly, a reasonable juror could conclude that the City’s proffered explanation did not actually motivate the decision, and that the City discriminated against Mr. McKenzie.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotions; an employee challenging an employer’s stated reason for a promotion decision must show that the reason was pretext for discrimination.

Farris v. RxBenefits Inc · filed 2025-09-10(a)(1)

Thus, Ms. Farris fails to sustain her burden of proof that RxBenefits’s reasons for failing to promote her were pretextual, and she has not raised a jury question as to whether RxBenefits intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of race.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) bars intentional race or color discrimination in employment; a failure-to-promote claim fails at summary judgment here without evidence that the plaintiff was more qualified than the person selected.

Thaxton v. Halcyon Group International, LLC · filed 2025-09-11(a)(1)

Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision bars employers from intentionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of race or color. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). ... Thaxton has made no attempt to show that he was more qualified than O’Hara in 2022 for the Lead Project Manager role. ... For that reason, his racial discrimination claims premised on Defendants’ alleged failure to promote him to Lead Project Manager fail.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits race discrimination in employment, and an employer can meet its burden to give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a promotion decision by showing that the selected candidates were well-qualified.

BOYKINS v. SEPTA · filed 2025-09-26

As for articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not interviewing Plaintiff for Nos. 1914, 2711, and 2839, Defendant satisfies this “relatively light” burden by citing how the individuals who were selected for each position were well-qualified.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in promotion decisions, but a failure to promote claim fails when the employee cannot show that the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual.

Patton v. Rhee · filed 2025-09-29(a)(1)

Even if Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, however, summary judgment is appropriate because no evidence suggests that Defendant’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for promoting Mahal was pretextual.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits racially discriminatory promotion decisions, and allegations that less experienced employees outside the protected class received promotions can state a plausible claim.

Michaux v. Mann+Hummel Filtration Technology · filed 2025-10-09(a)(1)

However, at the pleading stage, a pro se complaint must be liberally construed under the plausibility standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly, and comparative allegations of promotions to less experienced, Caucasian employees–as is the claim here–can suffice to make a claim plausible. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–79; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Accordingly, the Court finds that Michaux has plausibly alleged a discriminatory failure to promote.

A failure-to-promote discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a) needs facts supporting an inference that the rejection was based on sex or national origin.

Timothy · filed 2025-10-28(a)

Even assuming the sufficiency of those claims, Timothy fails to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the fourth prong so as to raise an inference of sex or national origin discrimination.

A failure-to-promote race claim survives summary judgment when the evidence raises a genuine dispute about whether the employer’s stated reasons are pretextual.

Voltz · filed 2026-01-26(a)(1)

But at the summary judgment stage, Voltz must only raise a genuine issue of material fact related to pretext. ... Voltz carried his burden. So the Court concludes that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether the City’s stated reasons are pretextual.

Title VII permits race-conscious promotion plans that address a manifest racial imbalance in traditionally segregated jobs, provided they do not unnecessarily trammel other employees' rights or bar their advancement.

In re Birmingham Reverse Discrimination Employment Litigation · filed 1994-05-04(a)

Determining whether the affirmative action plan embodied in the City decree was implemented consistent with Title VII's purpose and without unduly infringing the interests of Appellants involves a two-part test. We must first determine whether the City's consideration of the race of promotional candidates was justified by a manifest racial imbalance that reflected under-representation of blacks in traditionally segregated job categories. Id. If such a justification was present when the plan was developed, we must then determine whether the plan itself provides a proper remedy for that imbalance. A remedy is proper if the plan does not unnecessarily trammel the rights of non-black employees or create an absolute bar to their advancement.

Section 2000e-2 permits a race-conscious affirmative action plan to remedy a manifest racial imbalance if the plan does not unnecessarily trammel other employees’ rights or bar their advancement.

Bennett v. Arrington · filed 1994-05-04(a)

If such a justification was present when the plan was developed, we must then determine whether the plan itself provides a proper remedy for that imbalance. A remedy is proper if the plan does not unnecessarily trammel the rights of non-black employees or create an absolute bar to their advancement.

Section 2000e-2 permits voluntary, gender-conscious salary increases to remedy a demonstrated pay disparity when they do not unnecessarily trammel male employees’ rights.

Smith v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 1994-07-08(a)(1)

Instead, the relevant manifest imbalance would be in compensation rather than in traditionally segregated job categories, and the results of the study revealed such an imbalance. ... Accordingly, the Court must next determine whether VCU’s award of salary increases to certain female faculty members unnecessarily trammeled the rights of male employees. The Court finds that VCU’s action did not.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a voluntary affirmative action pay plan only if it meets the requirements for such plans, including a manifest imbalance the plan is designed to eliminate.

Smith v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 1995-08-24(a)(1)

A plan is invalid if it does not meet the Weber requirements as set forth above. ... We agree that there is a material question of fact as to whether there was a manifest imbalance in compensation between the male and female faculty.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a voluntary affirmative action pay plan when it addresses a manifest imbalance, aims to remedy discrimination, and does not unnecessarily trammel other employees' rights.

Ted J. Smith, Iii v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 1995-10-13(a)(1)

On its face, an affirmative action plan that provides for pay raises to only female faculty members violates this provision, but affirmative action plans are allowed in some instances. ... According to Weber, an employer's voluntary affirmative action plan is not a violation of Title VII if (1) its purpose is similar to that of Title VII, namely to "break down old patterns" of discrimination; (2) the plan does not "unnecessarily trammel" the rights of those outside the group that it is designed to protect; and (3) it is designed to eliminate a manifest racial or sexual imbalance. ... We agree that there is a material question of fact as to whether there was a manifest imbalance in compensation between the male and female faculty.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a voluntary affirmative action pay plan when it seeks to remedy discrimination, addresses a manifest imbalance, and does not unnecessarily burden other employees.

Smith v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 1996-05-10(a)(1)

On its face, an affirmative action plan that provides for pay raises to only female faculty members violates this provision. ... According to Weber, an employer’s voluntary affirmative action plan is not a violation of Title VII if (1) its purpose is similar to that of Title VII, namely to “break down old patterns” of discrimination; (2) the plan does not “unnecessarily trammel” the rights of those outside the group that it is designed to protect; and (3) it is designed to eliminate a manifest racial or sexual imbalance. ... Given the number of important variables omitted from the multiple regression analysis, and the evidence presented by the appellants that these variables are crucial, a dispute of material fact remains as to the validity of the study to establish manifest imbalance.

Section 2000e-2(m) prohibits making race a controlling factor in a promotion when the employer’s affirmative action plan does not justify that decision.

Davis v. City of Waterloo · filed 1996-07-24(m)

For all of the reasons we have discussed, we conclude that the city may not rely upon its affirmative action plan as justification for having made race a controlling consideration in promoting Thompson instead of Davis. The district court properly concluded that the city’s action in that employment decision discriminated against Davis in violation of Iowa Code section 216.6, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 2000e-2(a) does not permit an employer to use a non-remedial racial preference to promote workforce diversity.

Taxman v. Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway · filed 1996-08-21(a)

Although we applaud the goal of racial diversity, we cannot agree that Title VII permits an employer to advance that goal through non-remedial discriminatory measures.

Section 2000e-2's employment discrimination prohibitions serve equal opportunity and remedy segregation and minority underrepresentation caused by discrimination.

Taxman v. Board of Education of Township of Piscataway · filed 1996-08-21

Title VII was enacted to further two primary goals: to end discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, thereby guaranteeing equal opportunity in the workplace, and to remedy the segregation and underrepresentation of minorities that discrimination has caused in our Nation's work force. ... Title VII's first purpose is set forth in section 2000e-2's several prohibitions, which expressly denounce the discrimination which Congress sought to end.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits excluding job applicants because of race or sex, including through an affirmative action plan that bars white men to circumvent a lawful veterans’ preference.

United States v. Board of Trustees of Illinois State University · filed 1996-11-01(a)(1)

The Court finds that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Building Service Worker Learner Program at Illinois State University. Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful employment practices by refusing to hire white males into the position of Building Service Worker Learner between 1982 and 1991. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(l), 2000e-6(a).

Section 2000e-2(j) does not require preferential treatment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson · filed 1997-04-08(j)

Title VII’s one command regarding race and gender preferences conclusively demonstrates that Proposition 209 is entirely consistent: “Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any, [entity] ... subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group____”

Section 2000e-2(j) does not require an employer to take affirmative steps to recruit or hire minority applicants before a discrimination violation is found.

Gaines v. Boston Herald, Inc. · filed 1998-03-30(j)

Title VII, however, does not require any employer to take such affirmative steps until after a violation has been found.

The Title VII test for affirmative action hiring plans also applies to salary plans that favor one gender to correct a historical imbalance.

Maitland v. University of Minnesota · filed 1998-09-16

We think this analysis applies equally to an affirmative action salary plan, that is, a plan that favors one gender over another in awarding salary increases in order to correct an allegedly historical imbalance.

Title VII permits an affirmative action salary plan only if a manifest gender imbalance justifies it and the plan does not unnecessarily trammel male employees’ rights or seek to maintain a balance indefinitely.

Maitland v. University Of Minnesota · filed 1998-11-12

An affirmative action hiring plan may be successfully challenged as a violation of Title VII unless the consideration of an otherwise improper factor (the gender of the prospective employee) "was justified by the existence of a 'manifest imbalance' that reflected underrepresentation of women in 'traditionally segregated job categories.' " Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, Cal., 480 U.S. 616, 631, 107 S.Ct. 1442, 94 L.Ed.2d 615 (1987) (quoting United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 197, 99 S.Ct. 2721, 61 L.Ed.2d 480 (1979)). Further, to pass muster under Title VII, such an employment plan must not "unnecessarily trammel[ ] the rights of male employees" and it must be "intended to attain" a balance, "not to maintain one." Id. at 637, 639, 107 S.Ct. 1442. We think this analysis applies equally to an affirmative action salary plan, that is, a plan that favors one gender over another in awarding salary increases in order to correct an allegedly historical imbalance.