Williams v. Boorstin

Decision Date21 July 1972
Docket NumberNo. 79-1684,No. 1633-72,GS-11,79-1684,1633-72
Citation663 F.2d 109
Parties23 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1669, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,283, 213 U.S.App.D.C. 345 Joslyn N. WILLIAMS v. Daniel J. BOORSTIN, Librarian of the Library of Congress, Appellant. . Argued 11 June 1980. Decided 3 Oct. 1980. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil Action). Mark N. Mutterperl, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., and Robert E. Kopp, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant. John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty. and William Kanter, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellant. Michael D. Hausfeld, Washington, D. C., with whom Jerry S. Cohen and Herbert E. Milstein, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Before BAZELON, Senior Circuit Judge, TAMM and WILKEY, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY. Opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge BAZELON, concurring in the result. WILKEY, Circuit Judge: We have before us the case of a man who engaged in an elaborate masquerade as a purported law student, applicant for the bar, then lawyer in order to obtain and keep a job whose specific required qualifications called for a lawyer. Unmasked, his deception exposed, he was discharged, and immediately thereafter brought suit against his former employer, the Librarian of Congress, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII. It is not disputed that the plaintiff had lied on his job application where he misrepresented his academic credentials; it is not disputed that he lied on occasion during his employment to carry out his masquerade; it is not disputed that he continued to lie even after his superiors confronted him. The only issue is whether the plaintiff was fired in violation of his civil rights. The district court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 1 was violated by the Library of Congress when it terminated the plaint
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil Action No. 1633-72).

Mark N. Mutterperl, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., and Robert E. Kopp, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.

John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty. and William Kanter, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellant.

Michael D. Hausfeld, Washington, D. C., with whom Jerry S. Cohen and Herbert E. Milstein, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before BAZELON, Senior Circuit Judge, TAMM and WILKEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY.

Opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge BAZELON, concurring in the result.

WILKEY, Circuit Judge:

We have before us the case of a man who engaged in an elaborate masquerade as a purported law student, applicant for the bar, then lawyer in order to obtain and keep a job whose specific required qualifications called for a lawyer. Unmasked, his deception It is not disputed that the plaintiff had lied on his job application where he misrepresented his academic credentials; it is not disputed that he lied on occasion during his employment to carry out his masquerade; it is not disputed that he continued to lie even after his superiors confronted him. The only issue is whether the plaintiff was fired in violation of his civil rights. The district court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 1 was violated by the Library of Congress when it terminated the plaintiff. 2 We reverse the district court on the ground that the employment discrimination standard laid down by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green 3 is utterly inconsistent with a finding of discrimination in this case.

exposed, he was discharged, and immediately thereafter brought suit against his former employer, the Librarian of Congress, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII.

I. FACTS

The appellee, Joslyn Williams, who was not a lawyer, held a lawyer's job as a GS-11 copyright examiner at the Library of Congress. As of 11 August 1972 the Library terminated his employment upon learning of his lack of qualification and misrepresentation of that fact. It was in June 1972 that Williams received notice of removal, but he was allowed to submit a letter of resignation in lieu of termination by the Library. Two days before the resignation was to become effective, he attempted to rescind his resignation. The Library refused to accept the withdrawal of the letter of resignation, so Williams was forced to leave the Library on 11 August. The Director of Personnel, Robert W. Hutchison, wrote a letter to appellee, dated 11 August 1972, stating the Library's reasons for continuing to insist on his resignation:

As you know the Librarian had already approved removal action against you to be effective July 21, 1972. You received ample notice of the specific charges with right to reply, and written notice of final decision .... The Acting Librarian accepted your resignation with a departure date agreed upon three weeks past July 21, 1972, specifically August 11, 1972, because of your desire to effect an orderly transition and set in order certain employee union business in which you were engaged. This new date of August 11, 1972 was agreed to by the Library solely because of your involvement in these union matters, and because the agency considered it to be in its best interests to resolve these union matters with your assistance. 4

Williams then filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-16, asserting that racially discriminatory reasons motivated the Library to terminate his employment and force him to resign. 5

Williams started out at the Library in 1967 as a GS-4 in the law section. In a few months he moved up into a GS-7 slot where he was an examiner in the Library's Copyright Division. 6 By 1971 Williams had become Our exposition of the remaining factual considerations will quickly highlight three sets of facts: first, it is imperative to appreciate the depth and persistence of Mr. Williams' lies and their material relation to his original job and later promotions. Second, we will note Mr. Williams' genuine talent and impressive role as an advocate of employee, especially black-employee, rights. Third, we will look at the factual basis for the trial judge's inference that the Library retaliated against Williams, wrongfully removing him because of his advocacy.

a GS-11 and he applied for the GS-12 position of Senior Copyright Examiner. He did not win this last spot.

A. Lies and Misrepresentations

Williams is part of that too broad fellowship of educated men and women everywhere who "pad" their resumes inflating their apparent strengths. Unfortunately, Williams went beyond simple puffery and actually lied about his educational accomplishments. These false statements were criminal. 7

Directly under a warning in bold type that "(a) false or dishonest answer to any question in this application may be grounds for rating you ineligible for Federal employment, or for dismissing you after appointment, and may be punishable by fine or imprisonment (U.S.Code, Title 18, Sec. 1001)," 8 Williams certified in his 27 January 1967 application 9 that his statements were true. In fact, they were false-and materially so. He had successfully completed only one year at Dalhousie University Faculty of Law, after which he was not permitted to return because of academic failure. 10 This contrasts with Williams' representation of two years of successful law studies at Dalhousie. 11 Furthermore, because he believed that the Copyright Division preferred to hire lawyers and law students as examiners, 12 Williams fabricated three years of law training at Georgetown University. 13 The truth, however, is that Williams never enrolled in, attended or audited classes at Georgetown. 14 He also misrepresented somewhat his college studies at Howard University, thus enhancing the number of credit hours he successfully completed. 15 To be sure, he did actually receive a Bachelor of Arts degree from Howard, 16 but this alone would not have entitled him to any consideration whatsoever for the position for which he applied in 1967, and Williams knew this.

Williams perpetuated false representations about his education throughout subsequent job applications for promotions to levels GS-7 and GS-11, and in an unsuccessful application for a GS-12 job. Though the opinion below reflected more-or-less the plaintiff's falsifications, the district court took a rather curious approach toward them. We are at a loss to understand the casual attitude evinced by the district court in the following quotation:

By 1971, Williams had performed at least satisfactorily as an examiner and had risen to Grade GS-11. When a position The court continued in this curious vein, stating

as Senior Copyright Examiner GS-12 became vacant, Williams applied. He did not win the position despite his taking the calculated risk of representing (falsely) that he had attended Georgetown from 1966 through 1970 and had received a J.D. degree there. 17

soon after his employment at the Library, Williams began to exhibit lawyer-like skills far exceeding those normally found in a law student or a novice lawyer. He was accepted at the Library as if he had credentials as a lawyer, and represented employees with grievances about unfair employment most effectively. 18

Since Williams was not a lawyer and did not have the legal training he claimed, the "calculated risk" he took was nothing less than intentional deception. Williams' job called for a lawyer but was occupied instead by a mountebank; like nearly all mountebanks successful for a time he had talent in the role he attempted, and probably could have been equally successful in a related field not requiring repeated falsifications had he chosen to pursue his career honorably. 19

There is ample evidence in the record that Mr. Williams was hired for lawyers' jobs, because among all the applicants he appeared to be relatively better qualified on the scale of legal education. 20 In fact, when his application for a promotion to a full-time job at GS-7 in the Copyright Office was considered, the Personnel Action Recommendation recited in detail his (purported) academic credentials, stating that Williams "will receive his LL.B. degree (from Georgetown) in June 1969." 21 The Recommending Officers were impressed with Williams. They wrote:

Although Mr. Williams does not entirely meet the posted qualifications in that he does not yet have a law degree, we believe that his varied experience and his overall qualifications make him an unusually promising applicant. We therefore request that an exception be made to the posted qualifications. 22

In a later memorandum, one of the Recommending Officers confirmed that "(i)t was principally because of his alleged past and continuing law school experience that we decided to recommend Mr. Williams' appointment as a Copyright Examiner." 23 As noted above, Williams perpetuated his story in each of four job applications including the entry-level one. He perpetuated his ruse by "acting like a lawyer"-in the words of the district court, "(leading) his friends and his critics to believe him to be a trained and effective lawyer" 24-and requesting leave in 1970 and again in 1971 supposedly to study and sit for the Maryland bar examination. 25

Naturally-or, at least reassuringly-it was discovered eventually that Williams as a lawyer was a fake. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • Turner v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 02-1514(RMU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • August 25, 2005
    ...or practice" refers both to the use of collateral evidence of systematic discrimination for an individual claim, Williams v. Boorstin, 663 F.2d 109, 115 n. 38 (D.C.Cir.1980), and an approach available in class action lawsuits alleging discrimination against a class, Palmer v. Shultz, 815 F.......
  • Murphy v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, Llp
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 27, 2004
    ...815 F.2d 84, 90-91 (D.C.Cir.1987) (discussing the "pattern and practice" theory in a class action context); Williams v. Boorstin, 663 F.2d 109, 115 n. 38 (D.C.Cir.1980) (discussing use of evidence of systematic or general discrimination in an individual action for discrimination). Indeed, i......
  • Abrams v. Lightolier Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 24, 1995
    ...of specific discrimination against the actual individual.' " Gilty, 919 F.2d 1247, 1252 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting Williams v. Boorstin, 663 F.2d 109, 115 n. 38 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 985, 101 S.Ct. 2319, 68 L.Ed.2d 842 (1981)). The court in Gilty did not suggest that such evid......
  • Brandon v. Molesworth, 791
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1994
    ...the law of the land, a stranglehold on a job irrespective of that employee's material, work-related flaws." Williams v. Boorstin, 663 F.2d 109, 116-17 (D.C.Cir.1980). We adopt here the plurality analysis in Price Waterhouse. Applying Price Waterhouse to this mixed-motive case, our review of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Theories of liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases The substantive law
    • May 6, 2022
    ...Smalley v. City of Eatonville , 640 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1981). • Plainti൵ lied about academic credentials. Williams v. Boorstin , 663 F.2d 109 (D.C. Cir. 1980). §1.4.5 Pretext If the employer articulates a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action, the burden (burden of proof......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT