Oct. 24 — A black man who applied for hundreds of jobs at Cisco Systems but wasn’t hired failed to link the company’s collection of federal-contractor-applicant data to race discrimination, a federal court ruled ( Dougboh v. Cisco Sys., Inc. , 2016 BL 349793, D.N.J., No. 2:13-cv-04267, 10/20/16 ).
The case illustrates how a federal contractor can comply with both federal job bias laws and its obligation to ask applicants and employees to self-identify by race, sex and other protected classifications.
The Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which oversees companies that do business with the federal government, requires employers to try to collect the information as part of their “ organizational profile” under OFCCP affirmative action regulations.
Federal contractors need to keep workers’ self-identification data “separate and confidential” from the packets of information used by hiring managers, management attorney Susan Schaecher, a partner in Fisher & Phillips LLP’s Denver office, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 24. “That’s a ‘best practice’ for all employers,” she added.
Pascal Dougboh didn’t come forward with evidence showing the Cisco hiring managers who decided not to interview him for positions he applied for in 2012 were aware of his race, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey said in an Oct. 20 decision.
Dougboh had voluntarily disclosed the information when he established his “online profile” with Cisco in 2007 so he could search and apply for jobs over the company’s website. Between 2007 and November 2012, he “applied for hundreds” of jobs with the communications and technology company, the court said.
But Cisco argued that it kept the information regarding Dougboh’s race and gender away from hiring managers, and Dougboh didn’t show otherwise, Judge William J. Martini ruled. As a result, Dougboh “fails to raise an inference of discriminatory intent,” the judge wrote in dismissing Dougboh’s Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act claim.
The court’s analysis in finding there was no basis to infer race bias was pretty straightforward, Schaecher said. However, if the plaintiff had been able to connect the employer’s collection of his race and gender status to his failure to be hired, it may have been a different story, she said.
“It would have at least prevented the court from granting Cisco’s motion for summary judgment” on that basis, and it might have been enough for the case to be sent for trial, Schaecher said.
She said she’s seen situations in which self-identification data are collected as part of a worker’s application and then included in the packet of information handed over to hiring managers. Here, “the employer did the right thing” by keeping the information separate, Schaecher said.
Dougboh also failed to refute the company’s explanation that he wasn’t hired—or even granted an interview—in 2012 because his skills and experience were lacking when compared with other applicants, the court added.
Managers who interviewed Dougboh for other jobs in 2010 and 2011 similarly found his “technical skillset” underwhelming, and Dougboh had gaps in his employment, Martini said. In addition, “Defendant was understandably alarmed that Plaintiff had applied for literally hundreds of positions at the company,” the judge wrote.
This last point shows that workers can undermine their ability to show an employer’s qualifications-based justification for not hiring them was a pretext by applying for so many jobs that they couldn’t realistically be qualified for all of them, Schaecher told Bloomberg BNA.
Dougboh of Edison, N.J., represented himself. Littler Mendelson P.C. represented Cisco.
To contact the reporter on this story: Patrick Dorrian in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Dougboh_v_Cisco_Sys_Inc_No_213cv04267_WJM_2016_BL_349793_DNJ_Oct_.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)