Comments on: Is It An EEO Issue? A Legal Analysis

By: Bush

Bush — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:39:42 +0000

Hello, nice site look this:
I enjoyed looking around your web site.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 14 May 2006 03:09:37 +0000

Under the ADA, there is no affirmative action requirements/provisions. And under the ADA, employment application forms by businesses and universities cannot ask you “Are you disabled?” And how are you gonna have aa without a quota system? Is Gallaudet requiring applicants to identify themselves as deaf legal or illegal?

By: Donna Lewis

Donna Lewis — Sat, 13 May 2006 23:46:10 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Regina. A careful legal analysis, in the event that a non-selectee brought a claim of discrimination, would indeed require a very specific investigation into the selection criteria that were purported to be used and then actually used in the selection process. Any of the non-selectees, if they fall into a protected class, could argue (theoretically) that they were equally or more qualified than the selectee and not selected based solely on their membership in a protected class.

By: Donna Lewis

Donna Lewis — Sat, 13 May 2006 23:40:50 +0000

Just to clarify, factors like “at-will” are contract issues and not EEO issues. Any individual unhappy with a removal or other disintegration of offer could look at a [1] contract analysis, which focuses on the promises made (and perhaps breached) in the employment contract and an [2] EEO analysis which explores whether discrimination was at play. The individual can also look at both.

By: Donna Lewis

Donna Lewis — Sat, 13 May 2006 23:36:53 +0000

Thanks, Julie. The bases that non-selectees in any situation can proceed upon are the same bases for any claim of discrimination: color, race, gender, age, national origin, sex, etc. The harm for non-selection is actually one of the simplest harms there is: it is the harm of not being hired. The key for the individual bringing the discrimination claim is a perception that they were equally or more qualified than the selectee and that they were not selected because of their membership in a protected group.

By: Donna Lewis

Donna Lewis — Sat, 13 May 2006 23:27:38 +0000

Thanks for all of the discussion. For the record, I wrote the entry because a large number of individuals were assuming there was an EEO aspect involved. I was trying to delineate what brings an issue under the EEO purview. This was not a legal analysis in that I was working only with the information out in the media. In that respect, I was not focusing on a balanced legal analysis. I was merely providing the parameters of an EEO issue in response to the question of whether this issue fallas under EEO. I believe asking what I learned in law school is disrespectful and not conducive to productive discussion. Thank you, Donna Lewis

By: J.J.

J.J. — Fri, 12 May 2006 23:58:17 +0000

Would anyone elaborate on who Roz Rosen is and what her qualifications were? Just curious.

(Glenn, the night lives!)

By: glenn lockhart

glenn lockhart — Fri, 12 May 2006 23:49:50 +0000

Addendum: Rather than say JK received a helping hand (cronyism), I think Roz was dealt with unfairly. I wonder if she has a basis for a lawsuit… could Ms. Donna Lewis respond to this?

Also, would it be a plaintiff’s case, meaning the burden would be on her to prove that she was denied an equal employment opportunity? And what would be the “test”? The way I see it, she doesn’t have to prove that she should have been president, only that she should have at least been among the six interviewees, not a very difficult task.

By: glenn lockhart

glenn lockhart — Fri, 12 May 2006 23:04:39 +0000

Opinion… don’t ask me to back it up with facts:

From an EEO perspective, the selection process that paved the way for Fernandes (JK), Stern and Weiner is suspect because it eliminated Roz Rosen.

The argument we have seen for JK is that she’s qualified because she was provost, regardless of her performance. The argument against Roz is that although she was VP of Academic Affairs (which has been dissolved and was roughly equivalent to provost), her performance is what made her application DOA.

(Incidentally, I’m told former provost Harvey Corson was also an applicant, but let’s not even get into his chances.)

If being provost is on its face enough to qualify her for the presidency, which is what the whole JK world seems to be saying, then Roz should have advanced to the final six. If performance was indeed a consideration, then how did the search committee ever find her application inadequate? They had only her resume and references to go on at that point, and they doubtlessly sparkled, I’d bet my firstborn on that, unless she wrote in the margins, “BTW, King let me go and made JK provost, FYI.”

I don’t see how the same criteria could have screened Roz out but allowed JK ahead. Therefore, I am led to conclude that something other than the application materials submitted figured early into the search process.

Lastly, this is coming from someone who does not know JK. I graduated from MSSD in 1993, before she took over pre-college programs in 1995. I graduated from Gally in 1998, before JK became provost. The lady is a stranger to me. Nevertheless, it is no surprise that she advanced to the interview round… but a travesty that Roz didn’t.

/glenn lockhart

By: Julie Feldman

Julie Feldman — Fri, 12 May 2006 22:12:15 +0000

To a small extent, yes. But remember that the media shapes our perception based on what they think are our wants and desires. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t be calling them the fourth branch.