![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
October 19, 2001, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California ; January 10, 2002, Filed
[*1120] BEEZER, Circuit Judge:
Janet Stout, Juliana Nedd, Sheila Wright and Lee Harrison (collectively, the [*1121] "postal inspectors") appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Postmaster General in their employment discrimination action alleging denial of promotion on the basis of sex. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Appellants are female postal inspector team leaders in the Postal Inspection Service ("the Service"), the law enforcement branch of the United States Postal Service. They, along with 34 other postal inspectors, [**2] applied for promotion to Assistant Inspector in Charge ("AIC"), the highest non-executive managerial level in the Service. There were five open AIC positions, one each in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. Six of the 38 applicants who vied for these positions were women.
A review panel initially screened all applicants on the strength of their supervisor evaluations and applications. The panel identified the most qualified candidates and forwarded their names as potential interviewees to a separate selection committee that made the final hiring decisions. From the original pool of 38, the screening panel identified 10 applicants as the most qualified. None of the six female applicants was named to this list and none was initially interviewed by the selection committee.
Two female applicants were granted interviews in a second screening round which arose from unexpected circumstances. The selected candidate from the first round of interviews for the San Francisco position declined an offer. The Inspector in Charge of that office was not satisfied with the remaining candidates who were first interviewed and asked the screening panel to select additional [**3] names from the original pool of applicants. Two of the additional five applicants chosen to be interviewed were female applicants. One of these female applicants ultimately was promoted to the San Francisco AIC opening.
The postal inspectors commenced this action alleging that the Service caused them to suffer both disparate treatment and disparate impact on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to e-17. The district court granted the Service's motion for summary judgment on both claims of discrimination. The postal inspectors now appeal, contesting only the dismissal of their disparate impact claim.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
276 F.3d 1118 *; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 358 **; 87 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1255; 82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P40,978; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 232; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 381
JANET STOUT; JULIANA NEDD; SHEILA WRIGHT; LEE HARRISON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-98-03031-CW. Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding.
disparate impact, interview, promotion, postal inspector, female, screening, statistical, round, employment practice, percent, screening process, evaluations, candidates, disparity, pool, prima facie case, composition, gender, district court, decisions
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment, Appellate Review, General Overview, Standards of Review, Labor & Employment Law, Disparate Impact, Defenses, Business Necessity & Job Relatedness, Employment Practices, Selection Procedures, Neutral Factors, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Statistical Evidence, Disparate Treatment, Balanced Workforce & Bottom Line, Demotions & Promotions, Education Law, Racial Discrimination, Desegregation, Faculty & Staff