An enforcement manager for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Uma Kandan, sued her current employer for discrimination on the "basis of her gender (female), race (Asian) and national origin (Indian) in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
The plaintiff, a 24-year employee and a U.S. citizen by naturalization, alleges she was passed over for a well-deserved promotion which went, instead, to a U.S.-born African-American male with far less experience or qualifications.
The man chosen, she alleges, had been "groomed and promoted" by district director, another U.S.-born African-American male. The plaintiff had been actively filling the position as the interim director when she was passed over.
The plaintiff further alleges the selecting official in question, has a history of "promoting male employees over equally and/or more qualified female employees" and for "promoting other U.S.-born African-American males over female employees of other ethnicities and races".
In 2023, the EEOC settled another discrimination case with a female Black employee who alleged she was being paid less that a white man in a similar position. Ginger Christ, "Longtime EEOC employee alleges discrimination by agency", https://www.hrdive.com/news/eeoc-enforcement-manager-alleges-discrimination-by-agency (Sep. 04, 2024); Kandan v. EEOC, Case No.2:24-cv-02089 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Louisiana)(Aug. 26, 2024).
Commentary & Checklist
The allegations in this care are an illustration of what the EEOC refers to as "intersectional" – when the alleged discrimination is based on numerous protected classes. Each claim alone could pose risk to the employer.
As a federal employee, Plaintiff was required, before initiating a civil suit, to contact the EEOC's Office of Civil Rights, Diversity and Inclusion (OCRDI). She did so on March 17, 2023, seeking approval to file an internal EEO discrimination complaint against the EEOC. This was approved, and Plaintiff filed her internal EEO discrimination complaint on April 28, 2023.
On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff asked to withdraw her complaint from the EEOC's administrative process and to pursue her claims in "federal court pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(b) because more than 180 days had passed since her formal EEO discrimination complaint was filed and no final decision had yet issued."
It is not known whether any investigation, mediation, or conciliation occurred.
The plaintiff included a chart in her complaint, which compared her experience, job performance, and other qualifications to that of the man chosen for the position she aspired to and was fulfilling:
- The plaintiff has 24 years of experience with the EEOC – the man chosen had less than 2.
- The plaintiff had 18 years in a leadership position with the EEOC – the man had less than 2.
- The plaintiff had one year as Acting Field Director – the man had none. (the position at issue)
- The plaintiff had 5 years of experience as an investigator – the man had none.
- The plaintiff had 10 years as an enforcement supervisor – the man had 1.5 years.
- The plaintiff has 10 years as an enforcement manager – the man had none.
- The plaintiff has 10 years as a GS-14 – the man had five months at that level.
- The plaintiff had three Master's degrees – the man had none.
- The plaintiff was rated (twice) as "outstanding" as Acting Field Director – the man had not had the position.
- The plaintiff had supervised the man for 19 months – he had never been her supervisor.
- The plaintiff was "Qualified to be Referred on a Certificate of Eligibles for the Position of Field Director" - the man was not.
The plaintiff's prayer for relief indicates her litigation goals:
- Declaratory judgment stating that Defendants' practices violate state and federal law;
- Promotion to the position of Field Director of NOFO as a GS-15 (with the appropriate salary "step") as of February 7, 2023 or an award of front pay in lieu thereof;
- An award of lost wages, including benefits, from the date of the failure to promote on February 7, 2023;
- An award of reasonable attorney's fees;
- Costs of suit;
- Injunctive and equitable relief as provided by law;
- An award of compensatory damages to be proven at trial;
- Pre- and post-judgment interest; and
- For such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
We will watch the progress of this case to see what remedies, if any, the plaintiff achieves.
Here are some tips for preventing hiring/promotion discrimination risk: [rt]
- Do not use words or phrases that signal a preference for workers who are, or are not, of a certain protected class
- Do not state that an applicant of a certain protected class would "offend [e.g., customer, coworkers]" or would not be a good fit based on the protected class
- Avoid expressing a preference for applicants who are, or are not, a certain protected class in written job advertisements, including terms such as "like us", or "reflect our customer base"
- Do not disqualify an applicant because they would "stand out" or be "too different" or would not further diversity goals because of their protected class
- Do not express a preference for applicants in terms of protected class. For example, do not state that the position is a "diversity hire" or that the applicant should be "non-[e.g., Caucasian, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American]
- Never describe positions in terms that refer to protected class stereotypes or characteristics.
- Ensure that applicants of different protected classes are considered in the same manner as all other workers are considered
- When discussing applicants, do not use words or phrases referring to the applicant's protected class
- Do not include questions about protected class status in interview questionnaires or applications
- Provide discrimination prevention training for all employees, particularly those involved in the hiring process