Kuyper v. State
| Decision Date | 06 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 34724-1-I,34724-1-I |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Elsie KUYPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Washington, d/b/a Department of Wildlife, Respondent. |
Loretta M. Lamb, Assistant Attorney General, Seattle, for Respondent.
Elsie Kuyper sued the Department of Wildlife (Department) for age and gender discrimination when a position she sought was instead offered to a younger, male candidate. She appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment, contending that the Department did not produce evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its hiring decision. She also argues that even if it did, she produced sufficient evidence that the reason was a pretext for discrimination to withstand summary judgment. We conclude Kuyper did not produce sufficient evidence that the Department's showing of a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for its hiring decision was a pretext for discrimination and affirm. 1
Kuyper started working for the Department in 1968.
The Department is divided into six regions across the state. Kuyper has been a Land Agent in Region 4 since 1979. In 1991, the Department decided to restructure its divisions. As part of the restructuring, it created a new division, the Lands Resource Division, and the new position of regional Lands Program Coordinator (Coordinator). The Coordinator's duties included responsibilities formerly assigned to Land Agents. Although the Department eliminated the Land Agent position in three of its six regions, Region 4, which includes the Seattle area, kept its Land Agent position because of the area's population density.
To fill the six new Coordinator positions, the Department drafted a classification questionnaire and issued bulletins announcing the positions. It had two subject matter specialists score applications for the positions using an examination and scoring system set up by the Department of Personnel. Personnel generated a register based on the scores listing the top five candidates and any protected class candidates. Personnel then forwarded the register to the Department.
Kuyper applied for the Coordinator position in Region 4. The register for that region listed her as the number three candidate. The register also listed her as a protected class candidate because of her age and gender. Murray Schlenker, a younger male, also applied for the position. Kuyper and Schlenker received the same score, 97.1, on the initial exam. He was listed fourth on the register.
Once Personnel creates a register, an agency may hire any person on the list. An agency may also elect to further test or interview candidates on the register. The Department elected to conduct additional oral testing of the candidates and appointed a panel to conduct the interviews. Its members were Jenene Ratassepp, the Lands Division Assistant Director, and two regional managers. The panel interviewed both Kuyper and Schlenker in January 1992. Schlenker scored 136 points in the interview, the highest interview score of all the candidates.
Kuyper scored 96. After the panel tabulated the interview scores, Personnel referred the top candidate for each region to the regional managers. Some regional managers conducted further interviews of the top candidates. There were no further interviews in Region 4 and Schlenker was offered the Coordinator position for that region.
Kuyper sued the Department alleging that she was denied the promotion to Coordinator because of her age and gender and that the Department had retaliated against her for opposing its discriminatory practices. In the course of the litigation, she filed a pretrial motion to compel discovery. The Department submitted the requested documents to the court for an in camera review. Following the review, the trial court denied Kuyper's motion. The Department then moved for summary judgment. Kuyper moved to strike the Department's motion because the three supporting declarations were unsigned. She also moved to strike exhibits and excerpts in the Department's moving and reply papers on the ground that they contained inadmissible evidence. The trial court denied both of the motions to strike and granted the Department's motion for summary judgment. Kuyper appeals.
To establish a prima facie case of age and gender discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) she was within the statutorily protected age and gender group; (2) she applied and was qualified for an available promotion; (3) she was not offered the position; and (4) the promotion went to a younger male. Sellsted v. Washington Mut. Sav. Bank, 69 Wash.App. 852, 851 P.2d 716, review denied, 122 Wash.2d 1018, 863 P.2d 1352 (1993). Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision. Grimwood v. University of Puget Sound, Inc., 110 Wash.2d 355, 753 P.2d 517 (1988).
Both parties agree Kuyper met her initial prima facie burden. They do not agree on whether the Department established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to hire Schlenker. We conclude that it did. The Department established that Schlenker received the highest interview score for the Region 4 position and produced Ratassepp's written justification for all the Coordinator hiring decisions. This is sufficient evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for the decision. Schlenker was more qualified, and Ratassepp's justification relied on those qualifications.
Kuyper contends the Department's failure to identify the person who made the actual decision to hire Schlenker creates a genuine issue of material fact about whether that person had a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for the decision. We reject this argument. While this may be a factual question, it is not a material one. It does not matter who made the decision because it is uncontroverted that the Department was free to hire any person from the final list and that Schlenker was the highest scoring candidate. Under the facts of this case, the identity of the person making the decision is simply not relevant to whether the Department can proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its hiring decision.
Once the defendant meets its burden of showing a non-discriminatory basis for its decision, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to establish that the reason given is merely a pretext for intentional discrimination. Grimwood, 110 Wash.2d at 364, 753 P.2d 517. The issue before us here is whether Kuyper produced sufficient evidence below to raise an inference that the Department's decision to hire Schlenker based on his interview and test scores was a pretext for intentional discrimination based on Kuyper's gender and age. To meet this burden, Kuyper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renz v. Spokane Eye Clinic, PS
......Matthews, Phillabaum, Ledlin, Matthews & Gaffney-Brown, Spokane, for Respondents. SWEENEY, J. Both federal and state law prohibit an employer from discharging an employee for complaining about illegal conduct, including sexual harassment. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2 ...Chen v. State, 86 Wash.App. 183, 190, 937 P.2d 612 (1997); Kuyper v. Dep't of Wildlife, 79 Wash.App. 732, 738, 904 P.2d 793 (1995). She is not required to produce "direct or `smoking gun' evidence." ......
-
Mackey v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
......any sensory, mental, or physical disability .. are a matter of state concern , .. [and] such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of [Washington] inhabitants but menaces the institutions ... factor in employment decisions for other employees in the same circumstances.’ " Scrivener , 181 Wash.2d at 447-48, 334 P.3d 541 (quoting Kuyper v. Dep’t of Wildlife , 79 Wash. App. 732, 738-39, 904 P.2d 793 (1995) ). ¶69 Here, Home Depot submitted strong evidence that the actual reason ......
-
Fulton v. State, Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.
...offered the position, and (4) the promotion went to a male. Barker, 131 Wash.App. at 623–24, 128 P.3d 633;Kuyper v. Dep't of Wildlife, 79 Wash.App. 732, 735, 904 P.2d 793 (1995). Although the parties here had disputed other elements of Fulton's prima facie case below, on appeal DSHS argues ......
-
Kirby v. City of Tacoma
......Kirby also filed a Notice of Claim indicating his intent to assert constitutional tort claims under both the Washington State and Federal Constitutions. . The trial court granted the City's motions for partial summary judgment on all Kirby's claims, and ... Kuyper v. Dep't of Wildlife, 79 Wash.App. 732, 735, 904 P.2d 793 (1995), review denied, 129 Wash.2d 1011, 917 P.2d 130 (1996). Kirby satisfies the first ......