Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Fischbach v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections

Fischbach v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

March 8, 1996, Argued ; March 11, 1996, Decided

No. 95-7154, Consolidated with 95-7167

Opinion

 [*1181]  GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: Ronald Fischbach, an employee of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, claims that he was denied a promotion because he is white. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in his favor. In an unpublished order issued March 11, 1996, we reversed, 80 F.3d 558 (table); we now explain the basis of that disposition.

I. Background

In 1984, Dr. James Lomax retired [**2]  from his position as Chief Psychologist at a Department of Corrections facility called Youth Center I, located in the Lorton prison complex. In early 1985, when the Department moved to replace Dr. Lomax, Mr. Fischbach, who had worked as a counseling psychologist at Youth Center I for sixteen years and had served as Acting Chief Psychologist when Dr. Lomax was absent, applied for the job. Mr. Fischbach, who has a master's degree in psychology, testified that during most of 1984 he performed all of the administrative, therapeutic, and counseling duties in the psychology unit at the Youth Center (he was the only psychologist there), and that he had prepared the psychology unit's budgets for every fiscal year but one from 1980 through 1985. His supervisors had rated Fischbach's performance "excellent" for six consecutive years. Nonetheless, in February 1985 the position of Chief Psychologist went to someone else.

The process through which the Department filled the job of Chief Psychologist deviated in several important respects from the process prescribed by the District's personnel rules. The Department offered unrebutted testimony, however, establishing that it was "the same process [**3]  as is nominally [normally?] used by the Department … year in, year out."

First, the D.C. Office of Personnel reviewed written applications, on the basis of which it deemed 10 applicants qualified. Next, a panel of three Department of Corrections officials interviewed each of those 10 applicants. The panel consisted of James McKenna, the Assistant Administrator of Youth Center I; Jack Miller, the Chief Psychologist  [*1182]  at the Lorton Central Facility; and Sam Rosser, the Administrator-Designate for a planned facility at Lorton. McKenna and Miller are white; Rosser is black.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

86 F.3d 1180 *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 7306 **; 318 U.S. App. D.C. 186; 71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 316

RONALD J. FISCHBACH, APPELLEE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND HALLEM H. WILLIAMS, JR., APPELLANTS, Consolidated with 95-7167

Subsequent History:  [**1]  The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published July 2, 1996. As Amended July 15, 1996. Reported in Table Case Format at: 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41714.

Prior History: Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (No. 87cv00646).

Disposition: Reversed.

CORE TERMS

interview, district court, Psychologist, Personnel, candidates, answers, score, questions

Business & Corporate Compliance, Protection of Rights, Federally Assisted Programs, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Ultimate Burden of Persuasion, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Disparate Treatment, General Overview