"Younger male" comment will not support a sex discrimination claim under Section 1983

Here's a case that reminds us that even "direct evidence" of discrimination does not necessarily get you a trial for employment discrimination. The Court of Appeals holds that a woman who was denied an employment opportunity after the City Manager told her the City wanted a man for the position cannot proceed to trial because there is still no real evidence of discrimination.

The case is Brown v. Donat, a summary order issued on May 19. Brown worked for the City of Newburgh and occasionally served as interim Recreation Director. When the City was looking for permanently fill that position, plaintiff expressed interest, but the City decided that you needed a college degree for the position. Plaintiff does not have a college degree. But plaintiff still thought she qualified for the position because she had held the position on an interim basis in the past. And the City Manager also told plaintiff that the City Council wanted a "a younger male" for the position. The district court denied the City Manager's motion for summary judgment on the Section 1983 gender discrimination claim, but the Court of Appeals rejects that decision on qualified immunity grounds, holding that plaintiff cannot prevail at trial.

Plaintiff loses on appeal for the following reasons: 

(1) Plaintiff was not qualified for the position because she did not have a college degree. While plaintiff had successfully performed the duties of the position in the past, that is not enough to prevail against the City Manager, as the latter's authority to hire and promote was subject to applicable job requirements and civil service rules. There is no evidence the City's Civil Service Commission imposed the college degree requirement or refused to alter it for discriminatory reasons.The City Manager played no role in setting the qualifications.

(2) While direct evidence of discriminatory intent may defeat a summary judgment motion, the City Manager's "younger male" comment is not enough. The Court of Appeals (Bianco, Park and Nardini) holds that since the City Manager played no role in setting the job requirements, "and conveyed his belief regarding the City Council's intent without providing a basis for that conclusion," this comment will not support a verdict in plaintiff's favor.