Westminster Ingleside King Farm Presbyterian Retirement Communities, a management company that operates retirement and assisted living facilities in the greater Washington area, agreed to pay $85,000 and provide other relief to settle a race and retaliation discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC alleged that Westminster Ingleside violated federal law by refusing to promote a Black manager to an executive-level position because of her race, and then terminated her employment after she complained about the discrimination both internally and through a formal charge.
According to the complaint, the employee, despite being highly qualified, was denied a promotion to vice president or executive director on the grounds that she did not hold a bachelor's degree, even though the company had promoted White employees without such qualifications to similar or higher roles.
After she earned her bachelor's degree, her request for promotion continued to be ignored, and she eventually received what was described as a false written warning from human resources.
After expressing her intent to file a race discrimination charge, she was subsequently terminated.
The EEOC stated that the conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it involved both racial discrimination and retaliation for opposing such practices. Westminster Ingleside settled the case without admitting any wrongdoing and agreed to provide additional non-monetary relief as part of the consent decree.
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/westminster-ingleside-pay-85000-eeoc-race-and-retaliation-discrimination-lawsuit
Commentary
One of the primary allegations was:
… the employee, despite being highly qualified, was denied a promotion to vice president or executive director on the grounds that she did not hold a bachelor's degree, even though the company had promoted White employees without such qualifications to similar or higher roles.
In other words, the employers favored white employees in certain positions - which is illegal.
To prove that a highly qualified employee was denied a promotion due to illegal race discrimination, even when similar or higher roles were given to White employees without the stated qualifications, strong direct and circumstantial evidentiary support is required.
Direct evidence - such as explicit discriminatory remarks or policies - is rare, so most cases depend on circumstantial evidence, which can include patterns of behavior that disadvantage a racial group, inconsistencies in applying promotion standards, credible testimony, records documenting the qualifications and decisions affecting different employees, and comparative evidence showing similarly situated employees outside the protected class receiving more favorable treatment.
Courts often use frameworks like McDonnell Douglas, which requires the plaintiff to show membership in a protected group, qualification for the position, an adverse action, and more favorable treatment of comparators outside the group, and they look for a causal link between the adverse decision and race. Evidence like internal emails or performance reviews, testimony from witnesses, a documented sequence of events, and statistical data showing a pattern of discriminatory outcomes can all support such a claim.
To help prevent such claims, organizations must implement transparent, consistently applied promotion policies, clearly document the objective criteria for advancement, and regularly audit promotion and compensation data for any disparities by race or other protected status.
Comprehensive training for all decision-makers on anti-discrimination laws, routine documentation of promotion decisions, and prompt, good-faith responses to complaints also play a key role in helping reduce risk.
Additional Sources: https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual6; https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/facts-about-racecolor-discrimination
