MLB umpire loses racial discrimination case

This discrimination case is interesting because it shows us how decisions are made in Major League Baseball. The plaintiff is an MLB umpire who claims he was denied the crew chief position because of his race. The Court of Appeals finds that plaintiff cannot prove his case. Along the way, we see how crew chief assignments are made. 

The case is Hernandez v. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, a summary order issued on August 15. Each MLB game has a crew of umpires, with the crew chief, who "is the leader of the [umpiring] crew, the final decision-maker for all on-field issues, and the person who ensures the crew’s compliance with MLB’s rules and policies." The Court adds that "[i]n making the decision to promote an umpire to crew chief, MLB 'takes into account a number of factors—some of which are somewhat subjective—and prioritizes an umpire’s leadership and situation management.'”

While Hernandez claims he was denied the crew chief assignments because of his race, MLB counters that the real reason was his on-field performance as an umpire. Baseball fans will find this fascinating. MLB monitors the performance of its umpires in making promotional decisions. MLB said that plaintiff made an "erroneous call . . . in the ninth inning of a game on May 8, 2013, between the Oakland Athletics and the Cleveland Indians," and that plaintiff  not only missed the call but "failed to acknowledge his mistake." MLB also said that, during one game involving the Cincinnati Reds, while serving as interim crew chief, he asked Reds pitcher Homer Bailey "to autograph eleven baseballs for Hernandez and other members of the umpiring crew after a game in which Bailey pitched a no-hitter." Joe Torre, the former Yankees manager who now supervises the umpires for MLB, added that Hernandez has an “overly confrontational style,” which he called “counterproductive.”

Plaintiff asserts a disparate impact claim, which allows the plaintiff to win if a facially-neutral employment practice has a disparate impact on racial minorities and the employer cannot prove that disparate impact is justified by business necessity. The Court of Appeals (Menashi and Carney) finds that "although there was a bottom-line imbalance between white and minority crew chiefs, Hernandez has failed to establish a statistically significant disparity between the promotion rates of white and minority umpires."

Plaintiff also asserts a disparate treatment claim, which requires proof of discriminatory intent. These claims turn on circumstantial evidence, which is often hard to come by in these cases. Plaintiff argues he has enough evidence for a jury on this issue because the parties dispute what factors MLB considers in promoting umpires, how much weight MLB gave each of those factors,” and “the relationship between [Field Evaluation Forms] and umpire evaluations.” But despite these differences, there is still no showing of intentional discrimination, and as the trial court noted granting summary judgment, “MLB’s slightly different explanations [of the criteria it uses to make promotion decisions] are not genuinely inconsistent, but are a reflection of the subjective and multi-faceted nature of this determination. This evidence is insufficient to establish a genuine dispute of fact on pretext."