Rogers v. E.E.O.C., 76-1052

• Decision Date: 15 February 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-1052,76-1052
• Citation: 179 U.S.App.D.C. 270,551 F.2d 456
• Parties: 14 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 625, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,549, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 270 George T. ROGERS v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al., Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 456

551 F.2d 456

14 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 625,

13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,549, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 270

George T. ROGERS v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al., Appellants.

No. 76-1052.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 21, 1977.

Decided Feb. 15, 1977.

Beatrice Rosenberg, Atty., E.E.O.C., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles L. Reischel, Atty., E.E.O.C., Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellants.

Victor B. Gersh, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before TOM CLARK, ^* Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and MacKINNON and ROBB, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George T. Rogers, appellee, a black male, filed this action against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) pursuant to Section 717(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, ¹ alleging the EEOC discriminated racially in denying him appointment as District Director of the EEOC, Philadelphia District. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as back pay. Rogers had been employed at EEOC since 1968 and was, at the time of the filing of this suit, the Acting District Director of its office in Philadelphia.

At trial the District Court found that the EEOC selection officer, Ms. Williams, also a black, "conscientiously interviewed all six candidates . . . She was thoroughly informed as to the managerial, personality and other requirements of the job . . . She sincerely believed, with ample factual basis, that Hadfield (another applicant) was better qualified than Rogers and her primary compelling reason for the choice was based on this appraisal which in no way was pretextual. Her superiors who approved the recommendation did so on the merits without even knowing or caring whether Hadfield was black or white."

It further appears that when Rogers filed his complaint administratively, Ms. Williams was questioned about the circumstances of her selection; she stated that Rogers was not the best qualified applicant but indicated, in addition, that she had also been concerned about the Region EEO-1 profile (3 black Deputy Directors) and felt that a white person would reflect a better racial balance as Director. The court found that while this racial consideration was "never more than a makeweight in her selection, it was a subjective factor taken into account and the selection was therefore not racially neutral." Ms. Williams completely denied the racial consideration, but "there was no contemporaneous written statement from her indicating her reasons for selection", and the Court rejected her testimony in this regard. The court found it "thus impossible to measure the significance of her subjective attitude in relation to Rogers' rejection. Race was a factor in the choice."

Despite this finding, the trial court, in passing on Rogers' request that Hadfield be displaced and that Rogers be placed in the job with back pay, attorneys fees and costs, further found: "On all the proof before the court he (Hadfield) is better qualified than Rogers and the nature of the discrimination shown here does not warrant...