Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
333 N.W. 3rd Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34475
James P. Tarquin, P.A Call for a FREE Consultation!352-401-7671
Employment Law Blog
James Tarquin, P.A
As part of our commitment to assist and educate employees in fighting back against the abusive employment practices of employers, we offer a broad range of information about employment law issues in our employment blog.

Job Applicant Claims Discriminatory Failure To Hire Where Employer Disclosed It Wanted A Woman In The Job

Times Up Clock End Sexual Harassment Abuse Power 3d Illustration

Having represented employment discrimination victims for more than two decades, our Alachua County, Florida employment discrimination lawyers know that many employers mistakenly believe they are lawfully permitted to discriminate against men in the hiring context. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) forbids discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to all aspects of employment, including hiring, compensation, promotion, and discharge. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983), Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination protects men as well as women. In this article, our Gainesville, Florida employment discrimination attorneys explain how the facts alleged in Troise v. SUNY Cortland NY, 2019 WL 3817387 (N.D. N.Y. Sep. 14, 2019) demonstrate that many employers continue to believe that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination does not prohibit them from discriminating against men.

Job Applicant Alleges Sex Discrimination

In that case, Robert Troise (Troise) brought a sex discrimination lawsuit against State University of New York at Cortland (SUNY) pursuant to Title VII. Troise claims that SUNY violated Title VII by refusing to hire him for the position of office assistant because of his gender.

In 2016, Troise applied for an office assistant position at SUNY. The position “had to do with dealing with the courts and police.” Troise alleges that he had experience interacting with both. Troise further alleges that he had four “excellent” references for the position. Troise asserts that he was interviewed by the Director of the Student Conduct Office at SUNY. Troise contends that SUNY ultimately hired a less qualified woman for the job. Troise maintains that he was the more qualified candidate for the position because the woman selected lacked experience interacting with the courts and police.

After he was not selected for the position, Troise filed a charge of discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) alleging that he was not hired because of his gender. During the NYSDHR’s investigation, according to Troise, a SUNY human resources administrator told the NYSDHR investigator that “they had a woman in that job” as a temporary employee and that they intended to “hire her” after she passed a civil service test. Toise further claims that the human resources administrator disclosed to the NYSDHR investigator that “they wanted a [woman] in that job.”

Discriminatory Remark Evidence Of Sex Discrimination

SUNY filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Troise’s sex discrimination claim. In doing so, SUNY claimed that Troise was not chosen for the office assistant position was because he “scored poorly during the reference checking process.” The trial court denied SUNY’s motion for dismissal and ruled that Troise had alleged sufficient facts to establish that he was not hired because of his gender.

In denying SUNY’s motion for dismissal, the trial court focused on Troise’s claim that the human resources administrator disclosed that SUNY “wanted a [woman] in that job.” The alleged remark by the human resources administrator, the trial court explained, was evidence of SUNY’s discriminatory intent. The trial court also pointed to Troise’s allegation that the candidate selected was less qualified because she lacked Troise’s experience with courts and police, qualifications SUNY was allegedly seeking. “In the failure to hire context,” the trial court observed, “an employer’s choice of a less qualified employee not from the plaintiff’s protected class raises an inference of discriminatory intent.” Based on this evidence, the trial court concluded, Troise had provided support for his claim that SUNY’s failure to hire him “was motivated by discriminatory intent.”

Free Consult With Gainesville Discrimination Lawyers

Based in Ocala, Florida and representing employees throughout Central Florida, our Alachua County, Florida employment discrimination attorneys have been fighting for employees’ rights for more than twenty years. If you have experienced sex discrimination in the hiring context or have questions about your protection against sex discrimination under the federal anti-discrimination laws, please contact our office for a free consultation with our Gainesville, Florida employment discrimination lawyers. Our labor law attorneys take employment discrimination cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.

Designed and Powered by NextClient

© 2015 - 2022 James P. Tarquin, P.A. All rights reserved.
This Custom WebShop™ attorney website is designed
by NextClient.com.

Contact Form Tab Close Menu