St. Peter v Marsh for a Writ of Certiorari

94 pages
Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download
By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at
Date is approximate.
Impact area
- Economic Justice
Topic
- Economic Justice
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 90a83786-c39a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b
Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. St. Peter v Marsh for a Writ of Certiorari, 1981. 90a83786-c39a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/1e82478f-49b6-4925-975f-fcd34b37e3b8/st-peter-v-marsh-for-a-writ-of-certiorari. Accessed October 09, 2025.

Copied!
    No. 81-

In THE

i>ttprem? ©mart nf tfje llntteii £>tat?B
O ctober  T er m , 1981

V ir g in ia  M . S t . P eter ,

v.
Petitioner,

S ecr etary  of t h e  A r m y .

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

J a c k  G reenberg  
J am es  M. N abr it , III 
C h a r les  S t e p h e n  R a l s t o n *
G a il  J . W r ig h t

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019

R onda L. B illig  
M a r k  T . W ilso n

2007 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036

Attorneys for Petitioner
*  Counsel of Record



Question Presented

Did p e t i t i o n e r  prove  that  she had been 

d i s c r i m i n a t e d  a g a i n s t  because  o f  her sex in 

v i o l a t i o n  o f  T i t l e  VII o f  the C i v i l  Rights  

Act  o f  1964, as amended, when i t  was e s t a b 

l i s h e d  t ha t :

(1)  She was more q u a l i f i e d  than the 

male s e l e c t e d ;

( 2 )  The p r o c e d u r e s  by w h i c h  t h e  

s e l e c t i o n  was made v i o l a t e d  c i v i l  s e r v i c e  

r u l e s  de s i gned  t o  ensure that  d e c i s i o n s  are 

based on meri t  and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ;

( 3 )  The r e  was d i r e c t  e v i d e n c e  o f  

sexual  b i a s  on the p ar t  o f  the s e l e c t i n g  

o f f i c i a l s ?

l



INDEX

Pa9e

Quest i on  Pre sented  .............................  i

J u r i s d i c t i o n  ...........................................  2

S t a t u t o r y  P r o v i s i o n s  I n v o l v e d  . .  3

Statement o f  the Case ...................... 5

Statement o f  the Fact s  .................... 8

Reasons f o r  Grant ing  the Wri t  . .  17

I .  THIS CASE PRESENTS 
ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE IN THE 
ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE V II ,  
SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO 
THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO 
CASES INVOLVING FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES .........................................  17

I I .  THE DECISION BELOW CON
FLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT ,....................................... 21

I I I .  THE DECISION BELOW CON
FLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF OTHER 
COURTS OF APPEALS ...................... 29

CONCLUSION ................................................  35

11



Page

Appendix

D e c i s i o n  o f  the Court  o f
Appeals  .......................................................  1a

D e c i s i o n  o f  U.S.  Ma g is t ra t e  . . .  28a

Order o f  U.S.  Ma g is t ra t e  ............... 42a

Order o f  D i s t r i c t  Court  .................  44a

Judgment o f  Court  o f  Appeals  . . .  46a

Order Denying Rehearing .................  47a

Order Denying Rehearing
en banc .......................................................  49a

- iii -



Page

C a s e s :

Aikens v. U.S.  P o s t a l  S e r v i c e ,  642 
F.2d 514 (D.C. C i r .  1980) ,

vacated  and remanded, ____U.S.
___ , 69 L. Ed.2d 989 (1981 ),
d e c i s i o n  on remand, ____F.2d ____,

26 F . E. P.  Cases 1151 (Sept .
8, 1981) .....................................................  20

A r l i n g t o n  Heights  v.  M e t r o p o l i t a n  
Housing C o r p . , 429 U.S.  252 
(1977 ) .......................................................... 21

Boeing Co. v.  Shipman, 411 F.2d
365 (5th C i r .  1969 ) ........................... 23

Davis v.  C a l i f a n o ,  613 F.2d 957
(D.C. C i r .  1979) .................................. 20 ,26

Daye v.  H a r r i s ,  655 F.2d 258 (D.C.
C i r .  1981) ................................................  20

Furnco C o n s t r u c t i o n  Corp.  v.  Waters ,
438 U.S.  567 (1978 ) ........................... 19

Gr iggs  v.  Duke Power C o . ,  401 U.S.
424 (1971 ) ................................................  28

James v.  Stockham Val ves  & F i t t i n g s  
C o . ,  559 F.2d 310 (5th C i r .
1977) ,  c e r t . d e n i e d , 434 U.S.
1034 (1978 ) .............................................. 30

Johnson v.  Uncle B e n ' s ,  I n c . ,  628
F. 2d 419 (5th C i r .  1980) ............... 30

Lee v.  B o l g e r ,  454 F. Supp. 226 (S.D.
N.Y. 1978) ................................................  20

Table of Cases and other Authorities

IV



Page
Lubbock Feed L o t s ,  I n c .  v. Iowa 

Beef  P r o c e s s o r s ,  I n c . ,  630 
F. 2d 250 (5th C i r .  1980) ............... 23

McDonnell  Douglas Corp.  v.  Green,
411 U.S.  792 (1973)  ..........  1 9 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 8

Marotta v. Usery,  629 F.2d 615
(9th C i r .  1980 ) ....................................  20,34

M i s t r e t t a  v.  Sandia C o r p . , 649
F.2d 1383 (10th C i r .  1981) .......... 33

Page v.  B o l g e r ,  645 F.2d 227 (4th
C i r .  1981) ...........................................  20

Parson v.  Ka iser  Aluminum &
Chemical  C o r p . ,  575 F.2d 1374 
(5th C i r .  1978) ,  c e r t ,  d en i ed ,
441 U.S.  968 (1979 ) .............................  30

Pe rso nne l  A d m i n i s t r a t o r  o f  Massa
c h u s e t t s  v.  Feeney,  442 U.S.
256 (1979)  ...........................................  16,27

Rakestraw v.  U.S.  P e n i t e n t i a r y ,  ___
F. Supp. ___  24 F .E.P .  Cases
1316 (N.D. Ga. 1980 ) ...........................  20

Robbins v.  Whi t e - Wi l s on  Medical  
Center ,  I n c . ,  642 F.2d 153 
(5th C i r .  1981 ) ....................................  30,31

Rowe v. General  Motors C o r p . , 457
F. 2d 348 (5th C i r .  1972) ............... 31

Saunders v.  H e rc u l es ,  I n c . ,  510
F. Supp. 1137 (W.D. Va. 1981) . .  33

v



Page

Sweeney v.  Board o f  T r u s t e e s  o f
Keene S t a t e  C o l l e g e ,  569 F.2d
169 ( 1 s t  C i r .  1978) ,  v acate d
and remanded on o t h e r  grounds
439 U.S.  24 (1978 ) ...............................  32

Teamsters v. United S t a t e s ,  431 U.S.
324 (1977 ) ................................................  25

Texas Dept,  o f  Community A f f a i r s  v.
Burdine,  _____U.S.  _____ ,
67 L .Ed.2d 207 (1981)  ...................  passim

Turner v.  Fouche,  396 U.S.  346
(1970)  .......................................................... 26

Other A u t h o r i t i e s

Federa l  Perso nne l  Manual ........................  13

42 U.S.C.  §2000e-16   passim

vi



No. 81-

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

O ct ob er  Term, 1981

VIRGINIA M. ST. PETER,

P e t i t i o n e r ,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

P e t i t i o n e r ,  V i r g i n i a  M. S t .  P e t e r ,  

r e s p e c t f u l l y  prays  that  a w r i t  o f  c e r t i o 

r a r i  i s s u e  t o  r e v i e w  t h e  j u d g m e n t  and 

o p i n i o n  o f  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  C o u r t  o f  

A p p e a l s  f o r  t h e  D i s t r i c t  o f  C o l u m b i a  

C i r c u i t ,  e nt e re d  on July  1, 1981, rehea r i ng  

denied  August 13, 1981. The o p i n i o n  o f  the 

C o u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  i s  as  y e t  u n r e p o r t e d



2

and i s  s e t  out  in the Appendix h e r e t o  at 

pages l a  t o  27a.  The o p i n i o n  o f  the United 

S t a t e s  M a g i s t r a t e  o f  J u l y  9,  1 9 79 ,  and 

judgment e nt e re d  t here on  are unrepor ted  and 

a r e  s e t  o u t  in  t h e  A p p e n d i x  a t  p a g e s  

28a-43a.  The o r d e r  o f  the D i s t r i c t  Court  

approving the o p i n i o n  o f  the M a g i s t r at e  i s  

s e t  o u t  in t h e  A p p e n d i x  h e r e t o  a t  p a g e s  

4 4 a - 4 5 a .  The o r d e r s  o f  t h e  C o u r t  o f  

Appeals  denying r eh e a r i n g  and r e h e ar i n g  en 

banc are s e t  out  in the Appendix h e r e t o  at 

pages 46a-50a.

J u r i s d i c t i o n

The judgment o f  the Court  o f  Appeals  

was e n t e r e d  on J u l y  1,  1981 .  A t i m e l y  

p e t i t i o n  f o r  r e h e ar i n g  'was f i l e d  on July  

15,  1981,  and t h e  o r d e r  o f  t he  C o u r t  o f  

Appeals  denying the p e t i t i o n  f o r  r ehea r i ng  

and the s u g g e s t i o n  f o r  r eh ea r i n g  eri banc

was e nt ere d  on August 13, 1981. J u r i s d i c 



3

t i o n  o f  t h i s  C o u r t  i s  i n v o k e d  under  28 

U.S.C.  § 1 2 5 4 ( 1 ) .

S t a t u t o r y  P r o v i s i o n s  I n v o l v ed 

S e c t i o n s  7 1 7 ( a ) , ( c ) ,  and ( d )  o f  the  

Equal Employment Op po rt uni t y  Act  o f  1972, 

amending T i t l e  VII o f  the 1964 C i v i l  Rights  

Act  (42 U.S.C.  §2000e-16 ( a ) ( c )  and ( d ) )

p r o v i d e  in p e r t i n e n t  p a r t :

(a)  A l l  p e r s o n n e l  a c t i o n s  a f f e c t 
i n g  e m p l o y e e s  o r  a p p l i c a n t s  f o r  
employment  ( e x c e p t  w i t h  r e g a r d  t o  
a l i e n s  employed o u t s i d e  the l i m i t s  o f  
the United S t a t e s )  in m i l i t a r y  d e p a r t 
ments as d e f i n e d  in s e c t i o n  102 o f  
T i t l e  5,  in e x e c u t i v e  a g e n c i e s  as 
d e f i n e d  in  s e c t i o n  105 o f  T i t l e  5 
( i n c l u d i n g  e m p l o y e e s  and a p p l i c a n t s  
f o r  e m p l o y m e n t  who a r e  p a i d  f r o m  
n on ap propr iat ed  f u n d s ) ,  in the United 
S t a t e s  P o s t a l  S e r v i c e  and the P o s t a l  
R at e  C o m m i s s i o n ,  in  t h o s e  u n i t s  o f  
t h e  Government  o f  t he  D i s t r i c t  o f  
C o l u m b i a  h a v i n g  p o s i t i o n s  i n  t h e  
c o m p e t i t i v e  s e r v i c e ,  and in t h o s e  
u n i t s  o f  the l e g i s l a t i v e  and j u d i c i a l  
b r a n c h e s  o f  t h e  F e d e r a l  Government  
h a v i n g  p o s i t i o n s  in t he  c o m p e t i t i v e  
s e r v i c e ,  and in t he  L i b r a r y  o f  Con
g r e s s  s h a l l  be made f r e e  f rom any



4

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  based on r a c e ,  c o l o r ,  
r e l i g i o n ,  s e x ,  o r  n a t i o n a l  o r i g i n .

* * * *

( c )  Within t h i r t y  days o f  r e c e i p t  
o f  n o t i c e  o f  f i n a l  a c t i o n  taken by a 
department ,  agency,  o r  un i t  r e f e r r e d  
t o  in s u b s e c t i o n  (a)  o f  t h i s  s e c t i o n ,  
o r  by t h e  C i v i l  S e r v i c e  C o mm i s s i o n *  
upon an a p p e a l  f ro m a d e c i s i o n  o r  
o rd e r  o f  such department ,  agency,  or  
uni t  on a compla i nt  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  
b a s e d  on r a c e ,  c o l o r ,  r e l i g i o n ,  sex  
o r  n a t i o n a l  o r i g i n ,  brought  pursuant  
t o  s u b s e c t i o n  ( a )  o f  t h i s  s e c t i o n ,  
E xe c ut i ve  Order 11478 or  any s u c c e e d 
ing  E x e c u t i v e  o r d e r s ,  o r  a f t e r  one 
h u n d r e d  and e i g h t y  d a y s  f r o m  t h e  
f i l i n g  o f  t h e  i n i t i a l  c h a r g e  w i t h  
t h e  d e p a r t m e n t ,  a g e n c y ,  o r  u n i t  o r  
with the C i v i l  S e r v i c e  Commission* on 
a p p e a l  f rom a d e c i s i o n  o r  o r d e r  o f  
such department ,  agency or  un i t  u n t i l  
s u c h  t i m e  as f i n a l  a c t i o n  may be 
t a k e n  by a d e p a r t m e n t ,  a g e n c y ,  o r  
u n i t ,  an e m p l o y e e  o r  a p p l i c a n t  f o r  
employment,  i f  a g g r i e v e d  by the f i n a l  
d i s p o s i t i o n  o f  h i s  c o m p la i nt ,  o r  by 
t he  f a i l u r e  t o  t a k e  f i n a l  a c t i o n  on 
h i s  c o m p l a i n t ,  may f i l e  a c i v i l

^_/ R e f e r e n c e s  t o  t h e  C i v i l  S e r v i c e  
Commission are now t o  the Equal Employment 
O p p o r t u n i t y  Co mm is s io n  p u r s u a n t  t o  1978 
R e o r g a n i z a t i o n  Plan No. 1, 43 F.R.D.  19807, 
925 S t a t .  3781.



5

a c t i o n  as p r o v i d e d  in s e c t i o n  2000e-5  
o f  t h i s  t i t l e ,  in which c i v i l  a c t i o n  
t h e  head o f  t h e  d e p a r t m e n t ,  a g e n c y ,  
or  u n i t ,  as a p p r o p r i a t e ,  s h a l l  be the 
d e f e n d a n t .

( d )  The p r o v i s i o n s  o f  s e c t i o n  
2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( f )  through (k)  o f  t h i s  t i t l e ,  
as a p p l i c a b l e ,  s h a l l  g o v e r n  c i v i l  
a c t i o n s  brought  hereunder .

Pub. L. 88-352, T i t l e  V I I ,  § 717, as added

Pub.  L. 9 2 - 2 6 1 , § 11,  Mar.  24, 1972 ,  86

S t a t .  I l l ;  as amende d  P ub .  L. 9 6 - 1 9 1 ,

§ 8 ( g ) ,  Feb.  15, 1980, 94 S t a t .  34 #

Statement o f  the Case

This  i s  an a c t i o n  brought  under T i t l e  

VII  o f  t he  C i v i l  R i g h t s  A c t  o f  1 964 ,  as 

amended, 42 U.S.C.  §2000e-16.  P e t i t i o n e r ,  

V i r g i n i a  M. St .  P e t e r ,  the p l a i n t i f f  below,  

i s  a c i v i l i a n  employee o f  the United S t a t e s  

Army. This  a c t i o n  was commenced in 1978 

a f t e r  a f i n a l  d e c i s i o n  o f  the Department o f  

the Army denying p e t i t i o n e r ' s  c la im  that  

she had been d i s c r i m i n a t e d  a g a i n s t  because



6

o f  her sex when a male was promoted t o  a 

GS-12 p o s i t i o n  in the Uni ted S t a t e s  M i l i 

t a r y  Personne l  Center  (MILPERCEN).

By agreement between the p a r t i e s  the 

case was t r i e d  b e f o r e  a m a g i s t r a t e  on May 

7 ,  8,  9,  1 9 7 9 .  F o l l o w i n g  t h e  t r i a l

the m ag i s t r a t e  ent e re d  f i n d i n g s  o f  f a c t  and 

c o n c l u s i o n s  o f  law. She found,  i n t e r  a l i a , 

that  the p e t i t i o n e r  and two o t h e r  c a n d i 

d a t e s  f o r  t h e  p o s i t i o n  in q u e s t i o n  were  

b e t t e r  q u a l i f i e d  than the u l t i m a t e  s e l e c 

t e e .  ( A p p . , p.  32a) N e v e r t h e l e s s ,  p e t i 

t i o n e r ' s  c la im  t ha t  the a c t i o n  v i o l a t e d  her 

r i g h t s  under T i t l e  VII was denied  on the 

ground that  s i n c e  the  a c t i o n  a l s o  d i s a d v a n 

taged male a p p l i c a n t s ,  t he re  was no d i s 

c r i m i n a t o r y  i n t e n t .  ( I d . ,  p.  3 7 a . )  The 

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  u p h e l d  t h e  m a g i s t r a t e ' s  

f i n d i n g s  as not  c l e a r l y  e rron eous  (App. ,  

pp.  44a-45a.  )



7

P e t i t i o n e r  a p p e a l e d  t o  t h e  C o u r t  o f  

Appeals  f o r  the D i s t r i c t  o f  Columbia,  which 

a f f i r m e d  t h e  d e c i s i o n  b e l o w  by a t wo  

t o  one v o t e ,  but wi thou t  a s i n g l e  o p i n i o n  

f o r  t h e  C o u r t .  J u d g e  Tamm w r o t e  an 

o p i n i o n  d i s c u s s i n g  t h e  s t a n d a r d s  e s t a b 

l i s h e d  by Te x as  De pa rt ment  o f  Community

A f f a i r s  v.  B u r d i n e , ___  U.S. ____, 67 L.Ed.

2d 207 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,  and h e l d  t h a t  Burd i n e 1s

requirement  t hat  the de fendant  come f o r t h  

w i t h  a l e g i t i m a t e ,  n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

reason f o r  the p e r s o n n e l  a c t i o n  had been 

s a t i s f i e d  ( A p p . , pp.  1 a - 2 2 a . )  Judge Mikva 

c o n c u r r e d  in t h e  r e s u l t  but  p o i n t e d  o u t  

t h a t  B u r d i n e  was n o t  f u l l y  d i s p o s i t i v e ,  

s i n c e  t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  h e r e  had h e l d  

that  the p l a i n t i f f  was more q u a l i f i e d  then 

t h e  p e r s o n  h i r e d  ( A p p . ,  p p .  2 3 a - 2 5 a . )  

J u d g e  N i c h o l s  o f  t h e  C o u r t  o f  C l a i m s  

d i s s e n t e d ,  l a r g e l y  on the ground that  s i n c e



8

the reason o f f e r e d  t o  rebut  p e t i t i o n e r ' s  

pr ima f a c i e  case  demonstrated  that  p ro per  

p e rs on n e l  p r o ce d u r e s  had not  been f o l l o w e d  

and t h a t ,  indeed,  the methods were f r i v o l 

ous ,  the de fendant  had not  demonstrated  a 

l e g i t i m a t e  reason f o r  the a c t i o n  ( A p p . , pp.  

26a-27a.  )

A t i m e l y  p e t i t i o n  f o r  r e h e a r i n g  and 

s u g g e s t i o n  f o r  r e h e a r i n g  €?n b a n c  w e r e  

f i l e d .  T h e y  w e r e  d e n i e d  w i t h  C i r c u i t  

Judge Wright be ing  in f a v o r  o f  g r a n t i n g  a 

r e h e a r i n g  en banc  (App.  p p .  , 4 7 a - 5 0 a .  )

Statement o f  the Facts

During the t ime m a t e r i a l  t o  t h i s  c a s e ,  

p l a i n t i f f  was employed by the Department 

o f  the Army at the Uni ted S t a t e s  M i l i t a r y  

Personne l  Center  (MILPERCEN) in A l e x a n d r i a ,  

V i r g i n i a ,  at  the GS-11 l e v e l .  One o f  the 

p o s i t i o n s  at  t h e  C e n t e r  i s  C h i e f  o f  t h e  

U n i t e d  S t a t e s  M i l i t a r y  Academy S e c t i o n ,



9

O f f i c e r  A c c e s s i o n s  Branch.  The incumbent 

o f  the p o s i t i o n  i s  r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r  d i r e c t 

ing the  nominat ion p r o c e s s  f o r  the United 

S t a t e s  M i l i t a r y  Academy at West P o i n t .  The 

C h i e f  d e a l s  with nominat ing o f f i c i a l s ,  i n 

c l u d i n g  members o f  Congress ,  t h e i r  s t a f f s  

and o t h e r  high l e v e l  government and m i l i 

t a r y  o f f i c i a l s ,  and determines  the e l i g i 

b i l i t y  o f  a p p l i c a n t s  f o r  c e r t a i n  nomina

t i o n s .

In 1975 the p o s i t i o n  became vacant  and

the s e l e c t i o n  s u p e r v i s o r ,  C o l o n e l  W i l l l i a m

Hornish,  c o n t a c t e d  the p e r s o n n e l  o f f i c e  and

r e q u e s t e d  t h a t  t h e  s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  be
1/

i n i t i a t e d .  (J.  A. p.  84) C o l o n e l  Horn

ish wished the requirements  f o r  the p o s i 

t i o n  t o  i n c l u d e  t h a t  t h e  s e l e c t e e  be a 

West Po int  graduate  and under 40 years  o f

1 /  C i t a t i o n s  are t o  the J o i n t  Appendix 
f i l e d  in the Court  o f  Appea ls .



10

age ( A pp . , 3 9 a . )  He was informed,  however,  

that  such q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  would d i s c r i m i n a t e  

on t h e  g r o u n d s  o f  b o t h  s e x  and age and 

t h e r e f o r e  were not p e r m i s s i b l e .  Al though 

t hese  requirements  were not s p e c i f i c a l l y  

s t a t e d  in the s tatement  o f  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ,  

t h e  p e r s o n  s e l e c t e d  f o r  t h e  p o s i t i o n  in 

1975 was in f a c t  a male West P o in t  g r a d 

uate .

The p o s i t i o n  became v a c a n t  a g a i n  in 

1976, and under the p r oc e d u r e s  in e f f e c t  

p e t i t i o n e r ,  a long with o t h e r  e l i g i b l e  GS-11 

employees ,  was c o n s i d e r e d .  E l i g i b l e  p e r 

sons were ra ted  and ranked and i nt e r v i e w e d  

by a t w o - m e m b e r  c o m m i t t e e .  A m a l e ,  

Thomas S t a p l e s ,  was s e l e c t e d  f o r  t h e  

p o s i t i o n  o v e r  p e t i t i o n e r  and p e t i t i o n e r  

f i l e d  a charge o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  based on 

s e x .  D u r i n g  t h e  i n v e s t i g a t i o n  o f  t h e  

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  charge the  s e l e c t i n g  o f f i 



c i a l ,  L t .  C o l .  V e s p i a ,  t o l d  t h e  E q u a l  

Employment Op port uni t y  c o u n s e l o r  that  he 

had been l o o k i n g  f o r  someone who would f i t  

h i s  image o f  a West Po int  c a d e t ,  and who 

c o u l d  i n t e r - a c t  " b u d d y - t o - b u d d y "  w i t h  

C on gr es sm en  ( T r a n s . * ,  p .  1 3 7 ) .  The EEO 

o f f i c e r  t h e r e f o r e  c o n c l u d e d  t h a t  C o l .  

V e s p i a  p r e f e r r e d  a man f o r  t h e  p o s i t i o n  

and recommended t hat  the s e l e c t i o n  be made 

a g a i n  ( T r a n s . ,  p .  1 4 2 ) .  The s e l e c t i o n  

p r o c e s s  was t h e r e  a f t e r  v o i d e d ,  a l s o  

b e c a u s e  o f  s e v e r a l  o t h e r  p r o c e d u r a l  

i r r e g u l a r i t i e s  ( A p p . , p.  31a) .

I n  t h e  s e c o n d  s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s ,  

e l i g i b l e  e m p l o y e e s  wer e  a g a i n  r a t e d  and 

ranked by a p a n e l ,  which s e l e c t e d  out  the 

b es t  q u a l i f i e d  c a n d i d a t e s .  This  group o f  

nine pe rs ons  i nc luded  p e t i t i o n e r  and Mr. 

S t a p l e s ,  the person o r i g i n a l l y  s e l e c t e d .

j V  R e f e r e n c e s  are t o  the T r a n s c r i p t  o f  
the t r i a l  b e f o r e  the m a g i s t r a t e .

- 1 1 -



12

An i n t e r v i e w  committee c o n s i s t i n g  o f  t hr ee  

men, i n c l u d i n g  C o l o n e l  Hornish,  the s e l e c 

t i o n  s u p e r v i s o r ,  was s e t  up. The i n t e r 

v i e w i n g  p a n e l  d i d  n o t  r e v i e w  any o f  t he  

documentat ion r e l a t i n g  t o  the q u a l i f i c a 

t i o n s  o f  the c a n d i d a t e s ,  and, indeed ,  were 

" t o t a l l y  i g n o r a n t "  o f  t h e i r  b a c k g r o u n d s  

( A p p . , p.  35 a) .  Rather ,  the s e l e  c t i o n  was 

made s o l e l y  on the b a s i s  o f  t h e i r  p e r f o r 

mance in i n t e r v i e w s  l a s t i n g  from between 

two t o  15 minutes .  Moreover ,  the c a n d i 

dat es  were not  informed t ha t  they  would be 

j u d g e d  on t h e  b a s i s  o f  t h e i r  i n t e r v i e w  

alone (App. 3 5 a - 3 6 a ) .  As d i s c u s s e d  below,  

t h i s  p r o c e d u r e  v i o l a t e d  C i v i l  S e r v i c e  

Commission d i r e c t i v e s  g ov er ni ng  s e l e c t i o n  

b e t w e e n  c a n d i d a t e s  f o r  a c o m p e t i t i v e  

p o s i t i o n  in the f e d e r a l  s e r v i c e .

Judge  Tamm's o p i n i o n  f o r  t h e  c o u r t  

below s t a t e s  that  de f endant  " cho se  not  t o  

rev iew the a p p l i c a n t s '  backgrounds p r i o r  t o



13

the i n t e r v i e w s  because  o f  a b e l i e f  in the 

g e n e r a l  e q u a l i t y  o f  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , "  and 

t h a t  t h i s  r e l i a n c e  on i n t e r v i e w s  a l o n e  

p r o v i de d  the " n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  r a t i o n a l e "  

f o r  the s e l e c t i o n  ( A p p . , p.  18a) .  However,  

t h i s  was n o t  t he  d e f e n d a n t ' s  c h o i c e  t o  

make; Chapter  335 o f  the Fede ra l  Personne l  

Manual p r o v i d e d ,  at  the  time the s e l e c t i o n  

here was made, t ha t :

The s e l e c t i n g  o f f i c i a l  should be 
p r o v i d e d  with enough i n f o r ma t io n  about 
t h e  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  o f  t h e  c a n d i 
d a t e s  r e f e r r e d  t o  him ( f o r  e x a m p l e ,  
the c a n d i d a t e s '  e x p e r i e n c e ,  t r a i n i n g ,  
and e d u c a t i o n )  t o  enable  him t o  make 
a sound c h o i c e .  He must be informed 
o f  any awards r e c e i v e d  by the c a n d i 
dat es  and must be g iven  any s u p e r v i 
s o r y  a p p r a i s a l s  on t h e  c a n d i d a t e s .

F e d e r a l  P e r s o n n e l  Manual ,  C h a p t e r  335,

Subchapter  3 - 7 b ( 2 ) .

The t h r e e - m e m b e r  p a n e l  v o t e d  u n a n i 

mously t o  again s e l e c t  Mr. S t a p l e s  based 

s o l e l y  on t h e  image he p r o j e c t e d  d u r i n g  

h i s  i nt e v i e w .  C o l o n e l  Hornish t e s t i f i e d  

that  he was l o o k i n g  f o r  somebody who looked



14

n e a t  in a p p e a r a n c e  and who w o u ld  r e p r e 

sent  not o n l y  the Army but " the  M i l i t a r y  

Academy" ( J . A . , p.  93 ) .  C o l o n e l  Hornish 

t e s t i f i e d  t ha t  he was f a v o r a b l y  impressed 

by Mr. S t a p l e s  b e c a u s e  he was " d i r e c t ,  

neat ,  crew c u t ,  very  e n t h u s i a s t i c  about 

the j o b "  ( J . A . , p.  95 ) .

A f t e r  h ea r i ng  a l l  o f  the e v i d en ce  the 

m ag i s t r at e  found as a matter  o f  f a c t  that  

Mr. S t a p l e s  was s u b s t a n t i a l l y  l e s s  q u a l i 

f i e d  than p e t i t i o n e r ,  and indeed was the 

l e a s t  q u a l i f i e d  o f  the f o u r  c a n d i d a t e s  who 

t e s t i f i e d  at the t r i a l  ( A p p . , pp.  3 2 a - 3 5 a ) .  

Al though Mr. S t a p l e s  had per formed w e l l  in 

the p o s i t i o n s  he had h e l d ,  p l a i n t i f f  had 

impr ess ive  and f a r  s u p e r i o r  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  

in l i g h t  o f  her d i s t i n g u i s h e d  Army c a r e e r ,  

her development  o f  e x t e n s i o n  c o u r s e s ,  her 

f r e q u e n t  c o n t a c t  w i t h  C o n g r e s s i o n a l  and 

high ranking m i l i t a r y  o f f i c i a l s  and her e x 

p e r i e n c e  in o t h e r  j o b s  o f  e v a l u a t i n g ,  s e 



1 5

l e c t i n g  and p l a c i n g  r e s e r v e  o f f i c e r s  and 

ROTC c a n d i da t es  in the r e g u l a r  Army ( A p p . , 

pp.  3 2 a - 3 3 a ) .

The  m a g i s t r a t e  a l s o  d e s c r i b e d  in  

d e t a i l  the ways the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  had 

f a i l e d  t o  c o m p l y  w i t h  r e g u l a t i o n s  and 

p r o ce d ur es  e s t a b l i s h e d  both by the C i v i l  

S e r v i c e  Commission and the Department o f  

the Army. The c o ur t  he l d  t ha t :

In sum, f ro m a l l  t h e  t e s t i m o n y  
adduced at the t r i a l ,  the s e l e c t i o n  
p r o c e s s  appears t o  have been t o t a l l y  
s u b j e c t i v e ,  based on f l e e t i n g  impres
s i o n s  gained dur ing the b r i e f  i n t e r 
views ( e s t i m a t e s  ranged from 2 t o  15 
m i n ut e s ) ,  and wi t hout  any c o n s i d e r a 
t i o n  t o  t h e  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  o f  the  
c a nd i d a t e s  who were being c o n s i d e r e d ,  
o t h e r  than t h e  i m p r e s s i o n s  made ( o r  
n o t  m ade )  d u r i n g  t h e  i n t e r v i e w s .

From a l l  the e v i d en ce  adduced by 
b o t h  s i d e s ,  t h i s  C o u r t  c a n  o n l y  
c o n c l u d e  t h a t  t h e  s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  
f o r  t h i s  i m p o r t a n t  and s e n s i t i v e  
p o s i t i o n  resembled nothing  so  much as 
t he  game o f  " e e n i e ,  m e e n i e ,  m i n i e ,  
moe, " with the r e s u l t s  be ing  o f  about 
that  q u a l i t y .

(Appendix,  pp.  3 6 a - 3 7a ) .



16

D e s p i t e  t h e s e  f i n d i n g s ,  t h e  m a g i s 

t r a t e ,  r e l y i n g  on t h i s  C o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  in 

P e r s o n n e l  A d m i n i s t r a t o r  o f  M a s s a c h u s e t t s  

v.  Feeney , 442 U.S.  256 (1979 ),  he ld  t hat

s i n c e  a number o f  men had a l s o  n o t  been 

s e l e c t e d  as a r e s u l t  o f  the p r o c e d u r e s  used 

t he re  was no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  ( A p p . , p.  40a) .  

The c o n c l u s i o n s  o f  t h e  m a g i s t r a t e  were  

c h a l l e n g e d  by t h e  p e t i t i o n e r ,  but  were  

upheld as not  be ing  c l e a r l y  e rr on e ou s  by 

the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  judge .  On appeal  the 

p e t i t i o n e r  d i d  n o t  c h a l l e n g e  t h e  f a c t s  

f o u n d  by t h e  l o w e r  c o u r t ,  b u t  u r g e d  

t h a t  as a m a t t e r  o f  law t h e y  r e q u i r e d  a 

c o n c l u s i o n  t hat  t here  had been d i s c r i m i n a 

t i o n  i n  v i o l a t i o n  o f  T i t l e  V I I .  The 

government a l s o  d id  not  c h a l l e n g e  the f a c t s  

as c l e a r l y  e r r o n e o u s  but  d i d  a rg ue  t h a t  

p e t i t i o n e r ' s  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  w e r e  n o t  

s u p e r i o r  t o  t h o s e  o f  t he  s e l e c t e e .  On



17

a p p e a l ,  a l t h o u g h  J u d g e s  Tamm and Mikva 

e x pr e ss ed  some r e s e r v a t i o n s  c on c er n i n g  the 

f a c t s  found by the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  they  did  

not  f i n d  them t o  be c l e a r l y  e rroneous  and 

t h e r e f o r e  b a s e d  t h e i r  d e c i s i o n s  on t h e  

undisputed f a c t s  as s e t  out  above.

Reasons f o r  Grant ing  The Writ

I.

THIS CASE PRESENTS ISSUES OF IMPOR
TANCE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE V II ,  
SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE STAN
DARDS APPLICABLE TO CASES INVOLVING 
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

As w i l l  be d i s c u s s e d  below,  the Court 

o f  A p p e a l s '  d e c i s i o n  c o n f l i c t s  with t h i s  

C o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  in Texas Department o f

Community A f f a i r s  v.  B u rd i n e , ___  U.S.  ____.

67 L . Ed .  2d 207 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,  w i t h  r e g a r d  t o

both the type  o f  e v i d en ce  s u f f i c i e n t  t o  meet 

a prima f a c i e  case  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  and

the q u e s t i o n  o f  what c o n s t i t u t e s  a l e g i t i 



18

m a t e ,  n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  r e a s o n  f o r  a 

p e r s o n n e l  a c t i o n .  In t h e  l a t t e r  r e g a r d  

t h i s  c a s e  p r e s e n t s  t h e  C o u r t  w i t h  t h e  

o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  c l a r i f y  the Burdine s t a n 

d a r d ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  as  i t  r e l a t e s  t o  

f e d e r a l  government a g e n c i e s .

P e t i t i o n e r  urges t hat  a reason a r t i c u 

l a t e d  in resp onse  t o  a prima f a c i e  case  o f  

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  cannot  be " l e g i t i m a t e "  or 

" l a w f u l "  under Burdine i f  i t  demonstrates  a 

v i o l a t i o n  o f  f e d e r a l  law and r e g u l a t i o n s  

g ov erning  p e r s o n n e l  a c t i o n s ,  s i n c e  such an 

e x p l a nt  ion n e c e s s a r i l y  cannot  "be l e g a l l y  

s u f f i c i e n t  t o  j u s t i f y  a judgment f o r  the 

d e f e n d a n t " .  67 L . E d . 2 d  a t  2 1 6 .  The 

d i s s e n t  below agreed,  p o i n t i n g  out  that  a 

f r i v o l o u s  proced ure  c ou l d  not  c o n s t i t u t e  a 

l e g i t i m a t e  reason f o r  an a c t i o n .  The i s s ue  

was not  addressed  by the c o n c u r r i n g  judge ,  

but Judge Tamm, who announced the d e c i s i o n



19

o f  the Court ,  brushed the p r o p o s i t i o n  a s i de  

with the a s s e r t i o n  that  c o u r t s  "are  not  in 

the p e r s o n n e l  b u s i n e s s . "  ( A pp . , p.  19a, 

n . 5 )  T h i s  c a s e ,  t h e r e f o r e  p r e s e n t s  an 

important  i s s ue  un re so lv e d  by Burdine and 

i t s  p r e d e c e s s o r s ,  v i z . , what c o n s t i t u t e s  

a " l e g i t i m a t e "  reason.

In the c o n t e x t  o f  f e d e r a l  employment,  

a f a i r  r ea di ng  o f  McDonnell  Douglas Corp.  

v . G r e e n , 411 U. S .  792 ( 1972 ) ,  F u r n c o

C o n s t r u c t i o n  Corp.  v.  Waters ,  438 U.S.  567 

( 19 78 ) ,  and Burdine l e a ds  t o  the c o n c l u s i o n  

that  an a c t i o n  in v i o l a t i o n  o f  the law can

n o t  be t he  b a s i s  o f  o v e r c o m i n g  a p r  ima
2/

f a c i e  c a s e .  The i s s u e  i s  o f  g r e a t  im-

2 /  Thus,  u n l i k e  p r i v a t e  employers  ( s e e , 
F u r n c o  C o n s t r u c t i o n  Corp.  v.  W a te rs , 438 
U.S.  at  578) f e d e r a l  a g en c i e s  are not f r e e  
t o  run t h e i r  employment p r a c t i c e s  in any 
way they  see f i t ,  but are bound by s t a t u t e  
( T i t l e  5, United S t a t e s  Code ) ,  r e g u l a t i o n s  
( T i t l e  5, Code o f  Federa l  R e g u l a t i o n s ) ,  and 
m a n d a t o r y  d i r e c t i v e s  e m b o d i e d  in  t h e  
Federa l  Perso nne l  Manual.



20

p o r t an c e  s i n c e  i t  w i l l  a f f e c t  the a d j u d i c a 

t i o n  o f  the c la ims  o f  a l l  f e d e r a l  employees 

a r i s i n g  under T i t l e  VII  and o t h e r  s t a t u t e s  

p r o h i b i t i n g  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in employment.  

The number o f  such ca s es  at the a d m i n i s t r a 

t i v e  l e v e l  and in the c o u r t s  i s  growing,
3 /

p a r t i c u l a r l y  in the D i s t r i c t  o f  Columbia.

Both the Equal Employment Op port uni t y  

Commission and the United S t a t e s  Meri t  Sy s 

tem P r o t e c t i o n s  Board apply  the p r i n c i p l e s  

s e t  out  in Burd ine in the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  

d e te r m i n a t i o n  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  co mp la i nt s

3_/ S e e ,  e . g . , A i k e n s  v .__U . S .__P o s t a l
S e r v i c e , 642 F . 2 d  514 ( D . C . I C i r .  1 9 8 0 ) ,
v a c a t e d  and remanded , ____ U . S . ____, 6 9
L.Ed.2d 989 ( 19 81 ) ,  d e c i s i o n  on remand, ____
F.2d ___ , 26 F . E. P.  Cases 1151 (Sept .  8,
1981) ;  Daye v.  H a r r i s , 655 F.2d 258 (D.C.
C i r .  1981) ;  Davis  v.  C a l i f a n o , 613 F.2d 957 
(D. C.  C i r .  1 9 7 9 ) ;  M a r o t t a  v .  U s e r y , 629 
F.2d 615 (9th C i r .  1 980) ;  Page v.  B o l g e r , 
645 F.2d 227 (4th C i r .  1981) ;  Rakestraw v .
U.S.  P e n i t e n t i a r y , ___ F.Supp.  ___  24 F .E.P .
Cases 1316 (N.D. Ga. 1980) ;  Lee v.  B o l g e r ,
454 F. Supp. 226 (S.D.N.Y.  1978) .



21

b e f o r e  them. In many o f  t hese  c a s e s ,  the 

c l a i m  i s  made t h a t  t h e  p e r s o n n e l  a c t i o n  

c h a l l e n g e d  has not  been a c c o m p l i s h e d  in 

a c co rd  with p r o ce d u r e s  d es igned  t o  ensure 

t h a t  d e c i s i o n s  a re  made on t h e  b a s i s  o f  

mer i t  and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .  For the guidance 

o f  both the c o u r t s  and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  

b o d i e s  c h a r g e d  w i t h  t h e  e n f o r c e m e n t  

o f  T i t l e  V I I ,  i t  i s  e s s e n t i a l  t h a t  t h i s  

Court  make i t  c l e a r  that  d ep ar t ur es  from 

p r op er  p r o c ed u re s  not  o n l y  cannot  form a 

d e f e ns e  t o  a T i t l e  VII c l a i m ,  but ,  as the 

d i s s e n t i n g  Judge noted ,  c o n s t i t u t e  indepen

dent e v i d en ce  o f  an i n t e n t  t o  d i s c r i m i n a t e .  

A r l i n g t o n  H e i g h t s  v .  M e t r o p o l i t a n  Housing 

C o r p . , 429 U.S.  252,  267 (1977) .

I I .

THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW CON- -
FLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.

In McDonnel l  Douglas Corp.  v.  Green,  

s u p r a , t h i s  Court  he ld  that  one purpose  o f



22

T i t l e  V I I  was t o  a d v a n c e  t h e  s o c i e t a l  

i n t e r e s t  in " e f f i c i e n t  and t r u s t w o r t h y  

w o r k m a n s h i p  a s s u r e d  t h r o u g h  f a i r  and 

r a c i a l l y  n e u t r a l  employment and p e r s o n n e l  

d e c i s i o n s " ,  411 U.S.  at  801. Thus,  T i t l e  

VII d id  not  guarantee  a j o b  t o  ev er y  person  

" ' r e g a r d l e s s  o f  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ' "  ( I d . ,  at 

800) .  C o n s i s t e n t  with McDonnell  Douglas 

t h i s  Court  he ld  l a s t  term in Texas De pa rt 

ment o f  Community A f f a i r s  v.  B u r d i n e , s u p r a , 

that  an employer had " d i s c r e t i o n  t o  chose 

between e q u a l l y  q u a l i f i e d  c a n d i d a t e s "  so  

l o n g  as t h e  s e l e c t i o n  was n o t  a f f e c t e d  

by d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  based on sex (67 L.Ed.2d 

at 219)  (emphasis added) .

B u r d i n e  r e a f f i r m s  t h a t  t h e  e m p l o y e r

must p r o d u c e  e v i d e n c e  o f  a " l e g i t i m a t e ,
4 /  5 /

n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y " o r  " l a w f u l "  r e a s o n

_4/ 67 L.Ed.2d at 216.

5 /  The C o u r t  in B u r d i n e  s t a t e s  at  two 
p o i n t s  in the d e c i s i o n  that  the " e m p l o y e e ' s



23

f o r  denying the i n d i v i d u a l  the  p o s i t i o n .

T h i s  burden  was n o t  met in t h e  i n s t a n t

c a s e .  In Burdine the c o u r t  i d e n t i f i e d  some

o f  the f a c t o r s  that  must be c o n s i d e r e d  in

o r d e r  t o  determine the s u f f i c i e n c y  o f  the

e m p l o y e r ' s  e v i d en ce  o f f e r e d  t o  meet t h i s

burden.  The e m p l o y e r ' s  a r t i c u l a t i o n  must

be l e g a l l y  s u f f i c i e n t  t o  j u s t i f y  a judgment
6/

in  t h e  e m p l o y e r ' s  f a v o r .  F u r t h e r ,  t he  

e m p l o y e r ' s  e x p l a n a t i o n  o f  i t s  l e g i t i m a t e  

n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  reason must be c l e a r  and

5 /  cont in ue d

prima f a c i e  case  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  w i l l  be 
r e b u t t e d  i f  the employer a r t i c u l a t e s  l a wf u l  
reasons  f o r  the a c t i o n . . . "  67 L .Ed.2d at 
218.  Lat er  the Court  op ined  that  " . . .  the 
employer has the d i s c r e t i o n  t o  choose  among 
e q u a l l y  q u a l i f i e d  c a n d i d a t e s ,  p r o v i de d  the 
d e c i s i o n  i s  not  based on unlawful  c r i t e 
r i a " .  I_d. at  219.

6 /  See g e n e r a l l y ,  Lubbock  Feed L o t s , 
I n c . ,  v .  Iowa B e e f  P r o c e s s o r s  I n c . , 57 0 
F . 2 d  250 ( 5 t h  C i r .  1 9 8 0 ) ;  B o e i n g  Co.  v . 
Sh ipman, 411 F . 2 d  365 ( 5 t h  C i r .  1 9 6 9 ) .



24

r e a so na b ly  s p e c i f i c .

In the p r e s e n t  c a s e ,  the c o u r t s  below 

upheld the e x t r a o r d i n a r y  r e s u l t  o f  s e l e c t 

ing a male l e s s  q u a l i f i e d  than a woman,and 

r e f u s e d  t o  f i n d  t h a t  suc h an a c t i o n  was 

based on i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  The 

d i f f i c u l t y  with the d e c i s i o n s  o f  the c o u r t s  

below i s  that  i t  i s  i m p o s s i b l e  t o  d i s c e r n  

what e v i d e n c e  wou ld  have  s a t i s f i e d  them 

t h a t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  b a s e d  on s e x  p l a y e d  

an important ,  i f  not  d e t e r m i n a t i v e ,  r o l e  in 

t h e  e m p l o y m e n t  d e c i s i o n  in  q u e s t i o n .  

I n d e e d ,  o n e  i s  l e f t  w i t h  t h e  d i s t i n c t  

i m p r e s s i o n  t h a t  what was l o o k e d  f o r  was 

e v i d en ce  c l o s e  t o  an admiss ion o f  sexual  

b i a s .  T h i s  c o u r t ,  h o w e v e r ,  has made i t  

c l e a r  t hat  such e v i d e n c e  i s  not  r e q u i r e d ,  

s i n c e  s e l e c t i n g  o f f i c i a l s  a re  n o t  g o i n g  

t o  admit d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in open c o ur t  even

7/

7 /  67 L. Ed.2d at 218.



25

i f  t h e y  have a d m i t t e d  i t  t o  t h e m s e l v e s .  

See ,  e . g . ,  Teamsters v.  United S t a t e s , 431 

U.S.  324,  358 n. 44 ( 1977) .

The d e c i s i o n s  o f  the c o u r t s  below are 

p a r t i c u l a r l y  d i f f i c u l t  t o  understand s i n c e  

t h e r e  was an u n u s u a l  amount o f  e v i d e n c e  

here p o i n t i n g  t o  o v e r t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  The 

u l t i m a t e  s e l e c t i n g  o f f i c i a l  had o r i g i n a l l y  

w i s h e d  t h a t  t h e  p o s i t i o n  be f i l l e d  by a 

West P o in t  g raduat e ,  and at that  time o n l y  

males co u l d  so q u a l i f y .  The o f f i c i a l  who 

s e l e c t e d  the male a p p l i c a n t  in the f i r s t  

i n s ta nc e  s t a t e d  t o  an EEO i n v e s t i g a t o r  that  

he was l o o k i n g  f o r  someone who co u l d  i n t e r 

ac t  "b 'uddy-to -buddy"  with congressmen.  The 

s e l e c t i n g  o f f i c i a l  in the second go - round 

t e s t i f i e d  t h a t  he was i m p r e s s e d  by t he  

s e l e c t e e ' s  " c r e w  c u t "  a p p e a r a n c e  at  h i s

i n t e r v i e w .



26

The. s t a n d a r d s  used f o r  t h e  a c t u a l  

s e l e c t i o n ,  based as they were e n t i r e l y  on a 

p e r s o n a l  appearance at a s h o r t  i n t e r v i e w  

w i t h  no p r i o r  w ar n i n g  t o  t h e  a p p l i c a n t s  

that  that  was t o  be the s o l e  b a s i s  f o r  the 

c h o i c e ,  were s u b j e c t i v e  in the extreme.  As 

t h i s  c o ur t  has noted in another  c o n t e x t ,  

s u b j e c t i v i t y  at  the p o i n t  o f  s e l e c t i o n  can 

e a s i l y  mask d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  and c a l l s  f o r  

p a r t i c u l a r  s c r u t i n y  by the c o u r t s .  Turner 

v. Fouche , 396 U.S.  346,  360 (1970 ) ;  see 

a l s o ,  D a v i s  v .  C a l i f a n o , 613 F . 2 d  957,  

965-66 (D.C. C i r .  1980) .

The c o u r t  below he l d  that  t he re  was a 

l e g i t i m a t e  n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  reason f o r  the 

s e l e c t i o n  but one must search the r e c o r d  in 

v a i n  t o  f i n d  o u t  what i t  was ,  s i n c e  t he  

s e l e c t i o n  i t s e l f  was c a r r i e d  out  in v i o l a 

t i o n  o f  l e g a l l y  mandated p r o c e d u r e s .  In 

the f a c e  o f  a l l  o f  t h i s ,  the c o u r t  below



27

he ld  that  p e t i t i o n e r  did  not  meet her bur 

den o f  p r o o f ,  and that  the r e c o r d  showed 

t hat  the s e l e c t i o n  o f  a l e s s  q u a l i f i e d  man 

was n o t  t h e  r e s u l t  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  

What t h e n ,  i t  must be a s k e d ,  was i t  t he  

r e s u l t  o f ?  And what more must a p l a i n t i f f  

s h o w  t h a n  wa s  p r o v e n  i n  t h i s  c a s e ?

P e t i t i o n e r  urges that  c e r t i o r a r i  should 

be granted  t o  make i t .  c l e a r  t ha t  Burdine 

was not  w r i t t e n  t o  sound the d e a t h k n e l l  o f  

i n d i v i d u a l  T i t l e  V I I  c a s e s ,  and t h a t  

nothing  in i t  s tands f o r  the p r o p o s i t i o n  

that  the s e l e c t i o n  o f  a l e s s  q u a l i f i e d  male 

can be e x p l a i n e d  away by r e l i a n c e  on p e r 

s o n n e l  a c t i o n s  t h a t  w e r e  i l l e g a l  and 
8/

f r i v o l o u s .  In s h o r t ,  Burdine he ld  that

8 /  The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  b a s i s  f o r  i t s  
d e c i s i o n ,  a r e l i a n c e  on Personne l  Adminis 
t r a t i o n  o f  M a s s a c h u s e t t s  v .  F e e n e y , 442 
U.S.  256 (1 979) ,  f o r  the p r o p o s i t i o n  that  
b e c a u s e  some men were  a l s o  n o t  s e l e c t e d  
t he re  c o u l d  not  be d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  based on



28

an e m p l o y e r  was f r e e  t o  s e l e c t  b e t w e e n  

e q u a l l y  q u a l i f i e d  c a n d i d a t e s ,  but not  t o  

s e l e c t  a l e s s  q u a l i f i e d  male through the 

use  o f  p r o c e d u r e s  t h a t  n e c e s s a r i l y  can 

n o t .  be " l e g a l l y  s u f f i c i e n t  t o  j u s t i f y  a 

judgment f o r  t he "  employer .  67 L.Ed.2d  at 

216.  I f  c e r t i o r a r i  i s  not  granted  and the

8 /  c ont i nue d

sex ,  was a l s o  d i r e c t l y  in c o n f l i c t  with 
d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h i s  c o u r t .  Such an approach 
ig no re s  the f a c t  t ha t  the system o p er a t e d  
in f a v o r  o f  a man and thus o v e r l o o k s  t h i s  
C o u r t ' s  h o l d i n g  in G r i g g s  v .  Duke Power 
C o . ,  401 U. S .  424 ( 1 9 7 1 )  r e a f f i r m e d  by
McDonnell  Douglas Corp.  v.  Green , supra at 
800, t hat  " d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  p r e f e r e n c e  f o r  
any group,  m i n o r i t y  or  m a j o r i t y ,  i s  p r e 
c i s e l y  and o n l y  what C o n g r e s s  has p r o 
s c r i b e d . "  401 U.S at 430-31 .  Of c o u r s e ,  
s i n c e  t he re  was o n l y  one p o s i t i o n  open o n l y  
one o f  the men co u l d  be s e l e c t e d  f o r  i t ,  
b u t  t h a t  d o e s  n o t  i n  any way c h a n g e  
t he  f a c t  t h a t  t h e r e  was d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  
based on sex in f a v o r  o f  men as a group.  
To ho ld  o t h e r w i s e  would g i v e  employers  an 
a b s o l u t e  d e f e n s e  t o  almost  ev er y  T i t l e  VII 
c l a i m ,  s i n c e  in the g r e a t  m a j o r i t y  o f  ca s es  
more than one white  male w i l l  be in compe
t i t i o n  f o r  a promot ion  o r  a i n i t i a l  h i r e .



29

d e c i s i o n  below r e v e r s e d ,  one consequence 

w i l l  be  t h a t  e m p l o y e r s  g e n e r a l l y ,  and 

f e d e r a l  a g e n c i e s  in p a r t i c u l a r ,  w i l l  be 

l e f t  with the impress ion  that  they  can do 

a n y t h i n g  t h e y  w i s h  s o  l o n g  as  no o n e  

a c t u a l l y  c o n f e s s e s  that  they intended t o  

d i s c r i m i n a t e .  Such a r e s u l t  would render  

T i t l e  VII a dead l e t t e r .

I l l . .

THE DECISION BELOW CONFLICTS WITH
DECISIONS OF OTHER COURTS OF APPEAL

The need f o r  t h i s  C o u r t ' s  r e v i e w  i s  

most c o m p e l l i n g  in l i g h t  o f  the i n c o ng ru 

e n c y  b e t w e e n  t h e  o p i n i o n s  f r o m  o t h e r  

c i r c u i t  c o u r t s  and the Court  o f  Appeals  f o r  

the D i s t r i c t  o f  Columbia.

As s e t  f o r t h  in the statement  o f  the 

c a s e ,  the c o u r t  below a cc ep te d  the employ

e r ' s  a r t i c u l a t e d  reason f o r  i t s  s e l e c t i o n  

d e c i s i o n  i n  t h e  a b s e n c e  o f  any c l e a r



30

showing that  the reason  was a l e g i t i m a t e  

and l a w f u l  o n e .  The  F i f t h  C i r c u i t ' s  

r u l i n g  in Robbins v.  Whi t e - Wi l s on  Medical  

C e n t e r , I n c . ,  642 F.2d 153 (5th C i r .  1981) 

i s  in d i r e c t  c o n f l i c t  w i t h  t h e  d e c i s i o n  

in the p r e s e n t  ca s e .  In Robbins  v.  Whi te -  

Wi l son the c o u r t ,  in c o n s t r u i n g  Burdine t o  

r e q u i r e  the e m p l o y e r ' s  a r t i c u l a t i o n  t o  be a 

l e g i t i m a t e ,  c l e a r ,  and s p e c i f i c  r e a s o n  

s u f f i c i e n t  t o  rebut  the i n f e r e n c e  o f  d i s 

c r i m i n a t i o n ,  r e j e c t e d  the e m p l o y e r ' s  reason 

t h a t  i t  r e l i e d  s o l e l y  upon a s u b j e c t i v e  

i n t e r v i e w  p r o c e s s .  Robbins v.  Whi t e - Wi l s on  

Medical  Ce nt er ,  I n c , at  156 c i t i n g  Johnson 

v .  U n c l e  B e n ' s ,  I n c . ,  628 F . 2 d  419,  426

(5th C i r .  1980) ;  Parson v.  Ka iser  Aluminum 

& C h e m i c a l  C o r p . ,  575 F . 2 d  1 3 7 4 ,  1385

( 5 t h  C i r .  1 9 7 8 ) ,  c e r t . d e n i e d , 441 U.S .  

968 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ;  James v .  Stockham V a l v e s  &

F i t t i n g s  Co . , 559 F.2d 310,  345 (5th C i r .



31

1977) ,  c e r t , d e n i e d , 434 U.S.  1034 (1978) ;  

Rowe v.  General  Motors C or p . , 457 F.2d 348, 

359 (5th C i r .  1 972 ).  The Court conc luded  

that  the i n t e r v i e w  p r o c e s s  which was the 

s o l e  d eter min ing  f a c t o r  in a h i r i n g  s e l e c 

t i o n  p r o c e s s  was i n t r i n s i c a l l y  s u b j e c t i v e  

and t h e r e f o r e  co u l d  not  meet the burden o f  

be ing  a " l e g a l l y  s u f f i c i e n t "  e x p l a n a t i o n  in 

the " c l e a r  and r ea s on ab l y  s p e c i f i c "  manner 

as imposed by the c o ur t  in B u rd i n e . Rob

b i n s  v .  W h i t e - W i l s o n  Medical  Ce nt er ,  I n c . , 

at 157.

The f a c t s  now b e f o r e  t he  C o u r t  are  

d r a m a t i c a l l y  s i m i l a r  t o  t hose  in Robbins v . 

Whi t e - Wi l son  Medical  Center ,  I n c . , but the 

r e s u l t i n g  o p i n i o n s  are in d i r e c t  o p p o s i 

t i o n .  Here,  the d i s t r i c t  c o ur t  determined 

that  the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  (which was not 

c o n d u c t e d  in  c o m p l i a n c e  w i t h  g o v e r n i n g



32

r e g u l a t i o n s )  was a l s o  s u b j e c t i v e  and 

a r b i t r a r y ,  re semb l ing  the game o f  " e e n i e ,  

meenie,  minie ,  moe. "  The c o u r t  o f  a ppea ls  

in a dd re ss i ng  the i s s u e ,  r a t h e r  o b l i q u e l y  

d i s c o u n t e d  the s i g n i f i c a n c e  o f  the d e t e r m i 

na t i on  by a s s e r t i n g  t ha t  the c o u r t  i s  not
9 /

in the p e r s o n n e l  b u s i n e s s .  I t  d i d  h o l d ,  

however,  that  r e l i a n c e  s o l e l y  on a b r i e f  

s u b j e c t i v e  i n t e r v i e w  c o n s t i t u t e d  a l e g i t i 

mate and l a wf u l  reason f o r  the a c t i o n ,  a 

r e s u l t  s q u a r e l y  in c o n f l i c t  with the F i f t h  

C i r c u i t .

9 /  The n o t i o n  that  the c o u r t s  should  take 
a "hands  o f f "  a p p r o a c h  in c i r c u m s t a n c e s  
which i n v o l v e  d i f f i c u l t  o r  complex f a c t s  
and d e t e r m i n a t i o n s  has been n u l l i f i e d  in 
e m p l o y m e n t  c a s e s  i n v o l v i n g  a c a d e m i a .  
Sweeney v.  Board o f  T r u s t e e s  o f  Keene St a te  
C o l l e g e , 569 F.2d 169, 176 ( 1 s t  C i r .  1978) ,  
va ca te d  and remanded on o t h e r  g ro u n d s , 439 
U.S.  24 ( 1978) .



33

The s u f f i c i e n c y  o f  a d e f e n d a n t ' s  

a r t i c u l a t e d  n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  reasons  was 

a t  i s s u e  a t  a r e c e n t  r u l i n g  f r o m  t h e  

Tenth C i r c u i t  in M i s t r e t t a  v.  Sandia C o r p . ,  

649 F.2d 1383 (10th C i r .  1981) .  The Court  

analyzed the per formance  e v a l u a t i o n  system 

and c o n c l u d e d  t h a t  i t  was s u b j e c t i v e ,  

o v e r - g e n e r a l i z e d  and i n f e c t e d  with mecha- 

n i c i s m s  wh ich  p r o m o t e  b i a s .  In r e v e r 

s i ng  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  d e t e r mi n at i o n  o f  

n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  as in e r r o r ,  the Court  

a p p l i e d  Burdine t o  ho ld  that  " s u b j e c t i v e  

f a c t o r s  are p e r m i s s i b l e  if_ they are non

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  . . . "  M i s t r e t t a  v.  Sandia 

C or p . , supra at 1389. See a l s o ,  Saunders 

v.  H e r c u l e s ,  I n c . ,  510 F.Supp.  1137, 1141

(W.D. Va. 1981) .  ( De f e nd a n t ' s  mere s t a t e 

ment t hat  i t  d i s c ha r g e d  a male guard and 

no t  f e m a l e  g u a r d s  b e c a u s e  f e m a l e s  were 

n e c e s s a r y ,  was a n o n - s e q u i t u r , i n s u f 



34

f i c i e n t  t o  d i s p e l  the p l a i n t i f f s '  ca se  in 

acco rd ance  with the standards  ennunc iated  

in B u rd i n e . )

F i n a l l y ,  the h o l d i n g  below,  approv ing  

the s e l e c t i o n  o f  a l e s s  q u a l i f i e d  male on 

the b a s i s  o f  s t a n d a r d l e s s  and s u b j e c t i v e  

c r i t e r i a  c o n f l i c t s  with a p r e - Burdine d e 

c i s i o n  o f  t h e  N i n t h  C i r c u i t ,  wh ich  h e l d  

t h a t ,  in t h e  a b s e n c e  o f  a s a t i s f a c t o r y  

e x p l a n a t i o n ,  i t  must be assumed t ha t  a more 

q u a l i f i e d  a p p l i c a n t  would be s e l e c t e d  in 

the absence o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  Marotta v . 

U s e r y , 629 F . 2 d  615 ( 9 t h  C i r .  1 9 8 0 ) .

In sum, t he  d e c i s i o n  o f  t h e  c o u r t  

below i s  in square c o n f l i c t  with a d e c i s i o n  

o f  the F i f t h  C i r c u i t  and i s  i n c o n s i s t e n t  

w i t h  d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h e  N i n t h  and T e n t h  

C i r c u i t s .  C e r t i o r a r i  should  be granted  t o  

r e s o l v e  t hese  c o n f l i c t s  and t o  g i v e  f u r t h e r  

guidance  t o  the lower  c o u r t s  in d e c i d i n g  

t hese  important  c a s es .



35

CONCLUSION

For the f o r e g o i n g  re a so ns ,  the p e t i 

t i o n  f o r  a w r i t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i  s h o u l d  

be granted  and the  d e c i s i o n  o f  the c o ur t  

below r e v e r s e d .

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, I I I  
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON*
GAIL J.  WRIGHT

10 Columbus C i r c l e  
S u i t e  2030
New York,  New York 10019

RONDA L. BILLIG 
MARK T. WILSON

2007 Massachuset ts ,  A v e . , N.W. 
Washington,  D.C. 20036

A tt o r n e y s  f o r  P e t i t i o n e r
*
Counsel  o f  Record



APPENDIX



DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
____________J u l y  1, 1981______________

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 79-2066 

VIRGINIA M. ST. PETER,

A p p e l l a n t ,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

Appeal  From the  United S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  Court  
For The D i s t r i c t  o f  Columbia 

( D . C . C i v i l  No. 78-0 1 87 )

Argued December 11, 1980

Decided J ul y  1, 1981 [Judgment 
e nt ered  t h i s  date]

Opinion f i l e d  by C i r c u i t  Judge Tamm.

Separate  o p i n i o n  c o n c u r r i n g  in the



2a

r e s u l t  f i l e d  by C i r c u i t  J u d ^ e  M i k v a .

D i s s e n t i n g  o p i n i o n  f i l e d  by Judge  

N i c h o l s .

TAMM, C i r c u i t  J u d g e : In t h i s  c a s e

p l a i n t i f f  V i r g i n i a  M. St .  P e t e r  a l l e g e s  the 

v i o l a t i o n  o f  T i t l e  VII o f  the C i v i l  R ig ht s  

A c t  o f  1 964 by Army o f f i c i a l s  in  t h e i r  

p r o m o t i o n  o f  a m a l e ,  r a t h e r  t h a n  t h e  

p l a i n t i f f ,  t o  a c i v i l i a n  GS-12 p o s i t i o n  

in  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  M i l i t a r y  P e r s o n n e l  

Center  (MILPERCEN) in A l e x a n d r i a ,  V i r g i n i a .  

The case  was t r i e d  b e f o r e  a United S t a t e s  

Ma g is t ra t e  who recommended jugment f o r  the 

d e f e n da n t s ;  t h i s  recommendation was adopted 

by the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t .  P l a i n t i f f  a t t a c k s  

t h i s  d e c i s i o n  on s e v e r a l  grounds .  Because 

we f i n d  no p r e j u d i c i a l  e r r o r  in the p r o 

c e e d i n g s ,  we a f f i r m  the judgment f o r  the

d e f e n d a n t s .



3a

I .  BACKGROUND 

A. The S e l e c t i o n  Pro ce s s

I n A ug ust  o f  1976,  t h e  p o s i t i o n  o f  

C h i e f  o f  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  M i l i t a r y  

Academy S e c t i o n  ( C h i e f ,  o r  C h i e f  o f  USMAS), 

O f f i c e r  A c c e s s i o n s  Branch,  o f  the O f f i c e r  

P er so nne l  Management D i r e c t o r a t e  (OPMD), 

was v acant .  The C h i e f  o f  USMAS i s  r e s p o n 

s i b l e  f o r  d i r e c t i n g  the nominat ion p r o c e s s  

f o r  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  M i l i t a r y  Academy 

at  West  P o i n t .  The C h i e f  makes annual  

r e q u e s t s  f o r  submiss ion o f  nominat ions  by 

nominat ing a u t h o r i t i e s  and determines  the 

e l i g i b i l i t y  o f  a p p l i c a n t s  f o r  c e r t a i n  

nominat ions .  The C h ie f  o f  USMAS a l s o  d e a l s  

w i t h  n o m i n a t i n g  o f f i c i a l s ,  i n c l u d i n g  

members o f  C o n g r e s s ,  t h e i r  s t a f f s ,  and 

o t h e r  h i g h - l e v e l  government and m i l i t a r y  

o f f i c i a l s .

A formal  s e l e c t i o n  p roc ed ur e  was used 

t o  f i l l  t h i s  p o s i t i o n .  I n i t i a l l y ,  a r a t i n g



4a

and ranking pane l  s e l e c t e d  f i v e  c an d i d a t e s  

i t  c o n s i d e r e d  " b e s t  q u a l i f i e d , "  i n c l u d i n g  

t h e  p l a i n t i f f  and Thomas  K. S t a p l e s ,  

the e ve nt ua l  s e l e c t i o n ;  t hese  c an d i d a t e s  

w e r e  t h e n  i n t e r v i e w e d  by a t w o - m e m b e r  

committee .  The f i n a l  s e l e c t i o n  d e c i s i o n  

was made by L t .  C o l .  V e s p i a ,  a member 

o f  the i n t e r v i e w i n g  committee and a s s i s t a n t  

t o  C o l .  Hornish,  the s e l e c t i o n  s u p e r v i s o r .  

Vespi a  t e n t a t i v e l y  s e l e c t e d  Thomas S t a p l e s  

as  C h i e f  o f  USMAS; S t a p l e s  was n e v e r  

i n f o r m e d ,  h o w e v e r ,  o f  t h a t  d e c i s i o n .  

I n s t e a d ,  b e c a u s e  o f  s e v e r a l  p r o c e d u r a l  

i r r e g u l a r i t i e s ,  and p e r h a p s  b e c a u s e  S t .  

P e t e r  f i l e d  a charge o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  theV
e n t i r e  p r o c e s s  was v o i de d .

\J J o i n t  Appendix ( J .A.  ) at  26.  Three 
o t h e r  p r o c e d u r a l  i r r e g u l a r i t i e s  may have 
c o n t r i b u t e d  t o  t h e  d e c i s i o n  t o  v o i d  t h e  
i n i t i a l  s e l e c t i o n .  F i r s t ,  in  c h o o s i n g  
c a nd i d a t e s  t o  be i n t e r v i e w e d ,  the r a t i n g  
and r a n k i n g  p a n e l  f a i l e d  t o  c o n s i d e r  
an i n d i v i d u a l  who s h o u l d  have been c o n -



5a

A v o l u n t a r y  e q u a l  employment  o p p o r 

t u n i t y  o f f i c e r ,  Michael  Berger ,  i n v e s t i 

gated  St .  P e t e r ' s  i n i t i a l  charge .  Vespia  

t o l d  Berger  that  he had been l o o k i n g  f o r  

someone who would f i t  h i s  image o f  a West 

P o i n t  c a d e t ,  and B e r g e r  c o n c l u d e d  t h a t  

e i t h e r  Ve sp i a  or  OMPD p r e f e r r e d  a man f o r  

the j o b .  At the c l o s e  o f  h i s  i n v e s t i g a 

t i o n ,  Berger  recommended t o  Caro l  Burnet te ,  

the MILPERCEN c i v i l i a n  p er so nn e l  o f f i c e r  

i n v o l v e d  i n  t h i s  s e l e c t i o n ,  t h a t  t h e  

p roc ed ur e  be changed and that  St .  Pet er  be 

r eco ns  i d e r e d .

The second pro ce dure  f o r  f i l l i n g  the 

p o s i t i o n  a l s o  b e g a n  w i t h  a r a t i n g  and 

ranking p an e l .  This  panel  again s e l e c t e d

]_/ c ont inue d

s i d e r e d .  Second,  the members o f  the r a t i n g  
and ranking panel  d id  not  " r a t e "  and "rank"  
in a uni form manner. Thi r d ,  Vespia  was not 
a ut h o r i z e d  t o  make the s e l e c t i o n  in Hor-  
n i s h ' s  absence .



6a

the " b e s t  q u a l i f i e d "  c a n d i d a t e s ,  i n c l u d i n g  

St .  P e t e r  and S t a p l e s ,  a l though t h i s  time 

t h e r e  w e r e  n i n e  s u c h  c a n d i d a t e s .  The 

i n t e r v i e w i n g  c o m m i t t e e  f o r  t h i s  r o u n d  

c o n s i s t e d  o f  t hree  men, none o f  whom had 

been on the p r e v i o u s  i n t e r v i e w i n g  commit

t e e ,  and i nc lud ed  Co l .  Hornish,  the s e l e c 

t i o n  s u p e r v i s o r .  B e c a u s e  t h e  o r i g i n a l  

s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e d u r e  had r e s u l t e d  i n  a 

charge o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  C ar o l  B ur ne t te ,  

the c i v i l i a n  p e r so n n e l  o f f i c e r ,  wi t ne s se d  

t h e  i n t e v i e w s  as an i m p a r t i a l  o b s e r v e r .  

The f i n a l  s e l e c t i o n  was made on the b a s i s

o f  t h e  p e r f o r m a n c e  o f  t h e  c a n d i d a t e s
1/d u r i n g  t h e s e  s h o r t  i n t e r v i e w s .  C o l .

2 /  The panel  asked each c an d id at e  a s e t  
o f  o n l y  s i x  p r e d e t e r m i n e d  q u e s t i o n s ,  
f o l l o w e d  by a c a t c h - a l l  q u e s t i o n  a l l o w i n g  
the c a nd i da te  t o  g i v e  the panel  a d d i t i o n a l  
i n f o r m a t i o n  i f  he s o  d e s i r e d .  The s i x  
q u e s t i o n s  were:

( 1 ) Have you read the j o b  d e s c r i p t i o n  
f o r  t h i s  p o s i t i o n ?



7a

H o r n i s h  and t h e  o t h e r  i n t e r v i e w e r s  were 

unanimous in t h e i r  s e l e c t i o n  o f  S t a p l e s  as 

C h ie f  o f  USMAS.

B. The P ro c e e d i n g s  Below

On September 10, 1976, p l a i n t i f f  f i l e d  

a f ormal  charge  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  with the

2 /  c ont i nue d

( 2 )  Based upon y o u r  r e a d i n g  o f  t he  
j o b  d e s c r i p t i o n ,  what do you see 
as the most important  funct- ions 
t o  be c a r r i e d  out  in t h i s  p o s i 
t i o n ?

( 3 )  Why are  you s e e k i n g  t h i s  p o s i 
t i o n ?

(4)  Why do you f e e l  you are q u a l i f i e d  
f o r  the p o s i t i o n ?

(5)  Do you f e e l  you have the a b i l i t y  
t o  d e a l  w i t h  h i g h - l e v e l  o f f i 
c i a l s ?  P l ea s e  e x p l a i n .

(6)  Are you a v a i l a b l e  t o  t r a v e l ?  The 
t r a v e l  c o n s i s t s  o f  one-week t r i p s  
t o  West Po int  f o u r  t imes a year  
and t h r e e - d a y  t r i p s  t o  the prep 
s c h o o l s  o f  F o r t  Monmouth t wo  
t imes a y ear .

B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l e e  at  10.



8a

U n i t e d  S t a t e s  D e p a r t m e n t  o f  t h e  Army.  

She a l l e g e d  t ha t  the s e l e c t i o n  o f  S t a p l e s  

f o r  C h i e f  o f  USMAS had r e s u l t e d  f r o m  

i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  on the b a s i s  o f  

sex .  On December 23,  1977, the Department

made a f i n a l  d e t e r m i n a t i o n  t ha t  t he re  had 

been no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  St .  P e t e r  f i l e d  a 

c o m p l a i n t  in t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  

C o u r t  f o r  t h e  D i s t r i c t  o f  C o l u m b i a  on 

F e b r u a r y  1, 1978.  By a g r e e m e n t  o f  t h e

p a r t i e s ,  t h e  c a s e  was t r i e d  t o  a m a g i s 

t r a t e ;  the t r i a l  was he l d  on May 7, 8, and 

9, 1979.

During the t r i a l ,  the m a g i s t r a t e  heard 

t h e  t e s t i m o n y  o f  t h e  key  a c t o r s  in t h e  

s e l e c t i o n  p r o ce d u r e .  Wi tnesses  i nc l ud e d  an 

e x p e r t  on t h e  p e r s o n n e l  r e c o r d s  used  by 

t he  r a t i n g  and r a n k i n g  p a n e l ,  t h e  e q u a l  

employment o p p o r t u n i t y  o f f i c e r  who i n v e s t i 

gated  St .  P e t e r ' s  f i r s t  charge  o f  d i s c r i m i 

n a t i o n ,  t h e  t h r e e  members o f  t h e  s e c o n d



9a

i n t e r v i e w i n g  committee,  the c i v i l i a n  Army 

P er so nne l  S t a f f i n g  S p e c i a l i s t  who observed  

t ho se  i n t e r v i e w s ,  St .  P e t e r ,  S t a p l e s ,  and 

two o f  the o t h e r  c and id at es  f o r  the j o b .  

The m a g i s t r a t e  l earned  that  St .  Pe t er  had 

served  o ve r  twenty years  in the Army in a 

v a r i e t y  o f  r e s p o n s i b l e  p o s i t i o n s  and, a f t e r  

r e t i r i n g  from the Army in 1 967, had been 

employed in s e v e r a l  r e s p o n s i b l e  c i v i l i a n  

pos i t  i o n s .

A f t e r  re v i ewi ng  a l l  o f  the e v i d e n c e ,  

t h e  m a g i s t r a t e  e n t e r e d  f i n d i n g s  o f  f a c t  

and c o n c l u s i o n s  o f  law. She found that  the 

p l a i n t i f f  and s e v e r a l  o f  the o t h e r  c a n d i 

dat es  were " f a r  b e t t e r  q u a l i f i e d  f o r  the 

p o s i t i o n "  than was S t a p l e s .  J o i n t  Appendix 

(J • A. ) at  27. But see note 4 i n f r a . To 

support  t h i s  c o n c l u s i o n ,  she p o i n t e d  t o  St .  

P e t e r ' s  l o n g e r  c a r e e r  and s u p e r i o r  formal  

e d u c a t i o n  as w e l l  as h er  e x p e r i e n c e  in 

d e a l i n g  with h i g h- r an k in g  o f f i c i a l s .  In



10a

c o n t r a s t ,  s h e  n o t e d  t h a t  S t a p l e s  had

s t a r t e d  at MILPERCEN as a c l e r k - t y p i s t  in

1 964 and had o n l y  a high s c h o o l  e d u c a t i o n
2 /

e nh an c ed  by Army c o u r s e s .  The m a g i s -

3 /  S t .  P e t e r  had d e v e l o p e d  e x t e n s i o n  
c o u r s e s  f o r  m i l i t a r y  and c i v i l i a n  p e r s o n 
n e l ,  had commanded a WAC company, had d e a l t  
w i t h  members o f  C o n g r e s s  c o n c e r n i n g  t h e  
s t a t u s  o f  i n d i v i d u a l  r e s e r v i s t s ,  and had 
r e c or d ed  and moni tored  s e l e c t i o n s  f o r  the 
a c t i v e  Army o f  Army o f f i c e r s ,  ROTC c a d e t s ,  
and c i v i l i a n s  in t h e  Army r e s e r v e .  As 
C h i e f  o f  the M i l i t a r y  Personne l  Management 
Branch in t he  Canal  Z on e ,  S t .  P e t e r  had 
been r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r  p r o c e s s i n g  s e l e c t i o n s  
o f  p e r s o n n e l  f o r  the Canal Zone and p r e p a r 
ing  b r i e f i n g s  f o r  h e r  commander t o  g i v e  
t o  c i v i l i a n  o f f i c i a l s ,  i n c l u d i n g  members o f  
Congress .  As a c i v i l i a n ,  the p l a i n t i f f  had 
worked f o r  a NASA c o n t r a c t o r  f o r  more than 
t hre e  years  in s e v e r a l  r e s p o n s i b l e  p o s i 
t i o n s  and had l a t e r  worked  as an e q u a l  
employment  o p p o r t u n i t y  o f f i c e r  f o r  t h e  
M i l i t a r y  D i s t r i c t  o f  Washington.  In March 
o f  1 975,  she had a c c e p t e d  a j o b  in t h e  
O c c u p a t i o n a l  D e v e l o p m e n t  D i v i s i o n  o f  
MILPERCEN, working on o c c u p a t i o n a l  survey 
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  J .A.  at  36.

Between 1964 and 1971,  S t a p l e s  had 
been promoted t o  the p o s i t i o n  o f  M i l i t a r y  
P e r s o n n e l  S t a f f i n g  T e c h n i c i a n .  In t h i s  
c a p a c i t y ,  S t a p l e s  had i d e n t i f i e d  and



11a

t r a t e  a l s o  found that  the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  

was i n e f f i c i e n t  and a r b i t r a r y ,  and that  men 

as w e l l  as women were d isadvantaged  by i t .

In her c o n c l u s i o n s  o f  law, the magis

t r a t e  he ld  that  the p l a i n t i f f  had e s t a b 

l i s h e d  a prima f a c i e  c as e .  On the u l t ima te  

q u e s t i o n  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  however,  the 

m a g i s t r a t e  found that  the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e 

dure was a r b i t r a r y ,  but not  imper mi ss ib ly  

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y .  The ma gi s tr at e  t h e r e f o r e

3 /  c ont i nue d

s e l e c t e d  e n l i s t e d  p e r s on n e l  f o r  t r a i n i n g  
and a s s i g n m e n t s .  I n  1971 he had b e e n  
promoted t o  M i l i t a r y  Personne l  Management 
S p e c i a l i s t ,  working on programs f o r  p r o f i 
c i e n c y  pay and r e e n l i s t m e n t  bonuses.  His 
t asks  in p er f orming  t h i s  j o b  had inc luded  
b r i e f i n g  h ig h - r a n k i n g  o f f i c e r s  and h i g h -  
l e v e l  c i v i l i a n  o f f i c i a l s  in the Department 
o f  Def ense ,  e v a l u a t i n g  e n l i s t e d  p e rs on n e l  
f o r  t r a i n i n g  and a s s i g n m e n t s ,  p r e p a r i n g  
c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , and d r a f t i n g  r e g u l a t i o n s .  
During n e a r l y  e l e v e n  years  in the f i e l d  o f  
m i l i t a r y  p e r so n n e l  management, S t a p l e s  had 
t a k e n  s e v e r a l  o f f i c e r s '  c o u r s e s  and a 
c our se  in s u p e r v i s o r y  p e rs on n e l  management 
at the Adjutant  G e n e r a l ' s  S c h o o l .  J .A .  at 
41.



12a

r u l e d  in f a v o r  o f  the de fendnat  and d i s m i s 

sed the p l a i n t i f f ' s  complai nt  on J u l y  9, 

1979.  On A u gu st  16,  1979,  t h e  d i s t r i c t

c o u r t  a f f i r m e d  t hat  d e c i s i o n  by o r d e r  and 

e nt ere d  a judgment in f a v o r  o f  the d e f e n 

dant .

I I .  DISCUSSION

S t .  P e t e r  m a i n t a i n s  t h a t  t h e  m a g i s 

t r a t e ' s  d e c i s i o n  i s  p r e m i s e d  on t h r e e -  

e r r o r s .  F i r s t ,  the m ag i s t r a t e  f a i l e d  t o  

apply  the a p p r o p r i a t e  standard f o r  a prima 

f a c i e  c a s e  i n  a p r o m o t i o n  s i t u a t i o n .  

Second,  she did  not  p l a c e  the p r o p e r  burden 

o f  p r o o f  on the de fendant  a f t e r  determining  

t h a t  a p r i ma  f a c i e  c a s e  had been e s t a b 

l i s h e d .  Th i r d ,  and c l o s e l y  r e l a t e d  t o  the 

s e c o n d  p o i n t ,  t h e  d e f e n d a n t  s h o u l d  have  

been r e q u i r e d  t o  demonstrate  that  S t a p l e s



13a

was more q u a l i f i e d  than St .  Pet er  in o rder  

t o  rebut  the prima f a c i e  ca se .

A. The Prima Fac ie  Case

The m ag i s t r a t e  d id  not  a r t i c u l a t e  the 

p r e c i s e  f a c t o r s  she c o n s i d e r e d  c r u c i a l  t o  

e s t a b l i s h  a prima f a c i e  case o f  a d i s c r i m i 

n at ory  f a i l u r e  t o  promote.  She d id  r e f e r  

t o  McDonnel l  Douglas Corp.  v.  Green, 411 

U.S 792 ( 1 9 73 ) ,  however,  and, c i t i n g  Olson 

v.  P h i l c o - F o r d , 531 F . 2 d  474 ( 1 0 t h  C i r .

1976 ) ,  conc luded  that  a " [ p ] l a i n t i f f  must 

p r o v e  mo re  t h a n  t h e  mere  f a c t  o f  t h e  

p r o m o t i o n  o f  a q u a l i f i e d  m a l e  o v e r  a 

q u a l i f i e d  f e m a l e . "  J .A .  at  30.

As t h e  m a g i s t r a t e  r e a l i z e d ,  any 

a n a l y s i s  o f  t he  a p p r o p r i a t e  com po ne nt s  

o f  a p r i m a  f a c i e  c a s e  must  b e g i n  w i t h  

M c D on ne l l  D o u g l a s , t he  l e a d i n g  Supreme 

Court  case  in t h i s  area.  ' There the Court

d e s c r i b e d  the ev id ence  that  the p l a i n t i f f



14a

must p r e s e n t  t o  e s t a b l i s h  a p r i ma  f a c i e

case  in a h i r i n g  s i t u a t i o n :

( i )  t h a t  he b e l o n g s  t o  a r a c i a l  
m i n o r i t y ;  ( i i )  t hat  he a p p l i e d  and was 
q u a l i f i e d  f o r  a j o b  f o r  which  t he  
employer was se ek i ng  a p p l i c a n t s ;  ( i i i )  
that  d e s p i t e  h i s  q u a l i f i c a t i o n ,  he was 
r e j e c t e d ;  and ( i v ) t h a t ,  a f t e r  h i s  
r e j e c t i o n ,  the p o s i t i o n  remained open 
and t h e  e m p l o y e r  c o n t i n u e d  t o  s e e k  
a p p l i c a n t s  from pe rs ons  o f  c omp la i n 
a n t ' s  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .

411 U.S.  at 802. The f a c t s  b e f o r e  us are 

s l i g h t l y  d i f f e r e n t  from t h os e  in McDonnell  

D o u g l a s ; t h i s  case  i n v o l v e s  the promot ion  

o f  one p e r s o n  f rom a p o o l  o f  q u a l i f i e d  

a p p l i c a n t s  r a t h e r  than the r e f u s a l  t o  h i r e  

a member o f  a p r o t e c t e d  group and then a 

c ont inued  search f o r  o t h e r  a p p l i c a n t s  with 

s i m i l a r  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .  Some c o u r t s  have 

h e l d  t h a t  in such a p r o m o t i o n  s i t u a t i o n  

more  t h a n  s e l e c t i o n  o f  a m a l e  o v e r  a 

q u a l i f i e d  female must be shown. S e e , e . g . , 

Olson v.  P h i l c o - F o r d ,  531 F.2d 474 (10th

C i r .  1976) .



15a

I need  n o t  a d d r e s s  t h e  v a l i d i t y  o f

t h i s  v i e w  h e r e ,  h o w e v e r ,  b e c a u s e  t h e

m a g i s t r a t e  did  f i n d  t hat  the p l a i n t i f f  had

e s t a b l i s h e d  a prima f a c i e  ca s e .  I see no

harm t o  the p l a i n t i f f  in the rout e  used by

the m a g i s t r a t e  t o  reach that  c o n c l u s i o n ;

she found that  the p l a i n t i f f  had proved not

o n l y  that  she was q u a l i f i e d ,  but t hat  she

was more q u a l i f i e d  than t h e  s u c c e s s f u l  
4 /

c a n d i d a t e .  The p l a i n t i f f  was not p r e j -

4_/ I t  i s  n o t  e n t i r e l y  c l e a r  why t h e  
m a g i s t r a t e  b e l i e v e d  S t .  P e t e r  e m i n e n t l y  
mo re  q u a l i f i e d  f o r  t h i s  p o s i t i o n  t h a n  
S t a p l e s .  S t .  P e t e r ' s  s u p e r i o r  f o r m a l  
e d u c a t i o n  was i r r e l e v a n t  b e c a u s e ,  as a 
matter  o f  law, e d u c a t i o n a l  background o t h e r  
than j o b - r e l a t e d  co ur s es  may not  be used as 
a s e l e c t i o n  c r i t e r i o n .  See 5 U.S.C.  § 3308 
( 19 76 ) .  S t a p l e s  had taken more j o b - r e l a t e d  
c o u r s e s  than had St .  P e t er .  In a d d i t i o n ,  
S t a p l e s  had somewhat h igher  r a t i n g s  from 
h i s  MILPERCEN s u p e r v i s o r s  than d i d  S t .  
P e t e r ,  compare J .A .  at 45 with J .A .  at 39, 
and a p p a r e n t l y  p e r f o r m e d  much b e t t e r  in 
h i s  s e l e c t i o n  i n t e r v i e w .  A l t h o u g h  S t .  
P e t e r  may have had more e x p e r i e n c e  d e a l i n g  
with h i g h - r a n k i n g  o f f i c i a l s  o v e r  her  l o n ge r



16a

u d i c e d ,  t h e r e f o r e ,  as a r e s u l t  o f  t h e  

a n a l y s i s  e m p l o y e d  by t h e  m a g i s t r a t e .

B. The D e f e n d a n t ' s  Burden

P l a i n t i f f ' s  second o b j e c t i o n  co nc e rns  

the burden o f  p r o o f  p l a c e d  upon the  d e f e n 

dant t o  rebut  the prima f a c i e  c a s e .  St .  

P e t e r  m a i n t a i n s  t h a t  o n c e  a p r i ma  f a c i e  

c a s e  i s  e s t a b l i s h e d ,  t h e  p l a i n t i f f  i s  

e n t i t l e d  t o  r e c o v e r  " u n l e s s  the de fendant  

can prove  t hat  one o f  the o t h e r  c a n d i d a t e s  

f o r  the p o s i t i o n  was more q u a l i f i e d  than 

p l a i n t i f f  and would have been s e l e c t e d  f o r  

the p o s i t i o n ,  even absent  any d i s c r i m i n a 

t i o n . "  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t  a t  14. The 

m ag i s t r at e  found t hat  St .  P e t e r  was more 

q u a l i f i e d  t han S t a p l e s .  She c o n c l u d e d ,

£ /  cont in ued

c a r e e r ,  S t a p l e s  was not  t o t a l l y  l a c k i n g  in 
such e x p e r i e n c e .  See note  3 s u p r a .



17a

however,  that  t he re  had been no unlawful  

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  t hat  the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  

had been a r b i t r a r y  but not d i s c r i m i n a t o r y .

The Supreme C o u r t  has r e s o l v e d  t h i s  

p r e c i s e  i s s u e  in a manner c o n s i s t e n t  with 

the m a g i s t r a t e ' s  d e c i s i o n .  In Texas De

p a r t m e n t  o f  Community A f f a i r s  v.  B u rd i n e , 

101 S . Ct .  1089 ( 1981) ,  a unanimous Court 

h e l d  t h a t  o n c e  a T i t l e  V I I  p l a i n t i f f  

e s t a b l i s h e s  a prima f a c i e  c a s e ,  the burden 

s h i f t s  t o  t h e  d e f e n d a n t  t o  a r t i c u l a t e  a 

b e l i e v a b l e  n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  reason f o r  the 

employment a c t i o n .

The burd en  t h a t  s h i f t s  t o  t he  
de fendant  . . .  i s  t o  rebut  the presump
t i o n  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  by produc ing  
e v i d e n c e  t h a t  t he  p l a i n t i f f  was r e 
j e c t e d ,  or  someone e l s e  was p r e f e r r e d ,  
f o r  a l e g i t i m a t e ,  n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  
re aso n.  The defendant  need not  p e r 
suade the c o u r t  that  i t  was a c t u a l l y  
m o t i v a t e d  by t he  p r o f f e r e d  r e a s o n s .  
. . .  [ T ] o s a t i s f y  t h i s  i n t e r m e d i a t e  
burden,  the employer need o n l y  produce 
a d m i s s i b l e  ev i de nc e  which would a l l ow 
the t r i e r  o f  f a c t  r a t i o n a l l y  t o  c o n -



18a

e l u d e  t h a t  t h e  employment  d e c i s i o n  
had not  been mot i vated  by d i s c r i m i n a 
t o r y  animus.

I d . at 1094, 1096 (emphasis added) .  In the 

c a s e  at  hand,  t h e r e f o r e ,  t h e  m a g i s t r a t e  

q u i t e  p r o p e r l y  p l a c e d  no burden o f  p e r s u a 

s i o n  upon the d e f endant .

D e f e n d a n t ' s  a r t i c u l a t i o n  o f  i t s  

n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  r a t i o n a l e  f o r  t h e  

employment a c t i o n  at  i s s ue  here i s  c l e a r l y  

r e v e a l e d  in the r e c o r d .  Thus,  de fendant  

chose not t o  rev iew the a p p l i c a n t s '  ba ck 

grounds p r i o r  t o  the i n t e r v i e w s  because  o f  

a b e l i e f  in the g e n e r a l  e q u a l i t y  o f  q u a l i 

f i c a t i o n s .  J .A .  at 87. Moreover ,  because  

the p o s i t i o n  t o  be f i l l e d  was c o n s i d e r e d  

l a r g e l y  a s a l e s  p o s i t i o n ,  J .A .  at  88-89,  

t h e  s h o r t  i n t e r v i e w s  w e r e  s e e n  as  an 

e f f e c t i v e  v e h i c l e  f o r  t h e  e v a l u a t i o n  o f  

"enthusiasm" and salesmanship.  The magis 

t r a t e ' s  o p i n i o n  r e f l e c t s  an understanding



19a

o f  t h i s  r a t i o n a l e  advanced by the d e f e n -  
5 /

d a n t .  Where ,  t h e r e f o r e ,  t he  f o r m a t  o f  

the t r i a l  has compl ied with the c r i t e r i a  

e s t a b l i s h e d  in McDonnell  Douglas and l a t e r  

c a s e s ,  the m a g i s t r a t e ' s  f a i l u r e  t o  s t a t e  

s p e c i f i c a l l y  the d e f e n d a n t ' s  a r t i c u l a t e d  

r a t i o n a l e  i s  not  c r i t i c a l  t o  an understand

ing o f  the f a c t u a l  b a s i s  o f  her u l t im at e  

c o n c l u s i o n  and does not r e q u i r e  a remand. 

E . g . , L u j a n  v .  New Mexico  Health and So

c i a l  S e r v i c e s  Department , 624 F.2d 968, 970 

(10th C i r .  1 980) .  C f . Klapac v.  McCormick, 

640 F . 2 d  1361,  1 363 -6 5  (D.C.  C i r .  1981)

(per  c u r i a m ).

5 /  I do not  endorse  the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e 
dure employed by the Army in t h i s  case .  As 
the m a g i s t r a t e  a p t l y  ob se rv e d ,  however,  we 
are "not  in the p e r so n n e l  b u s i n e s s . "  J .A.  
at 29. "The f a c t  that  a c o ur t  may think 
that  the employer misjudged the q u a l i f i c a 
t i o n s  o f  the a p p l i c a n t s  does not  in i t s e l f  
e x p o s e  him t o  T i t l e  VII  l i a b i l i t y . . . . "  
B u rd i n e , 101 S . C t .  at  1097.



20a

C . The U l t i m a t e  Burden o f  P e r s u a s i o n

P l a i n t i f f ' s  f i n a l  and r e l a t e d  o b j e c 

t i o n  i s  s i m p l y  t h a t  t h e  d e f e n d a n t  n e v e r  

gave a good reason f o r  s e l e c t i n g  S t a p l e s  

o v e r  h e r .  A g a i n ,  t h e  S u p r e m e  C o u r t ' s  

d e c i s i o n  in Burdine makes c l e a r  that  the 

defendant  need not  produce  e v i d e n c e  that  

the person  s e l e c t e d  was b e t t e r  q u a l i f i e d  

than the p l a i n t i f f .  I n s t e a d ,  the u l t i m a t e  

burden o f  p e r s u a s i o n  remains on the  p l a i n 

t i f f  t o  e s t a b l i s h  unlawful  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  

In Lieberman v. Gant , 630 F.2d 60 (2d C i r .

1980) ,  the Second C i r c u i t  c o r r e c t l y  f o r c a s t  

the r e s u l t  and r a t i o n a l e  o f  B u r d i n e . Judge 

F r i e n d l y ' s  statement  f o r  the c o u r t  on t h i s  

i s s u e  demonstrate  the e r r o r  o f  p l a i n t i f f ' s  

co nt ent  i on.

I t  i s  enough f o r  the d e f enda nt s  
in t h e  s e c o n d  p h a s e  o f  t h e  c a s e  t o  
br ing  f o r t h  e v i d en ce  t ha t  they  a ct ed  
on a n e u t r a l  b a s i s .  They do not  have



21a

the burden o f  e s t a b l i s h i n g  t hat  t h e i r  
b a s i s  was s o u n d ;  r a t h e r  the  burden 
then f a l l s  on the p l a i n t i f f  t o  demon
s t r a t e  t hat  i t  i s  p r e t e x t u a l .  One way 
o f  do ing  t h i s ,  o f  c ou r s e ,  would be t o  
show t hat  the a s s e r t e d  n eu t r a l  b as i s  
was s o  r i d d e n  w i t h  e r r o r  [ or  a r b i 
t r a r y ]  t h a t  d e f e n d a n t  c o u l d  n o t  
h o n e s t l y  have r e l i e d  upon i t .

I d . at  65 ( f o o t n o t e  o m i t t e d ) .  I f i n d  no 

reason t o  o v e r t ur n  the m a g i s t r a t e ' s  c o n c l u 

s i o n  t h a t  p l a i n t i f f  f a i l e d  t o  c a r r y  her  

u l t i m a t e  burden o f  p e r s ua s io n .

I I I .  CONCLUSION

A f t e r  e x a m i n i n g  t he  d e c i s i o n  o f  the  

m a g i s t r a t e  in c o n j u n c t i o n  with the ev idence  

o f  r e c o r d ,  we f i n d  no reason t o  d i s t u r b  the 

judgment f o r  the d e f enda nt s .  Although the 

s - e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  employed by the Army c e r 

t a i n l y  l acked  s o p h i s t i c a t i o n ,  I agree with 

t he  m a g i s t r a t e  t h a t  t he  p r o m o t i o n  o f  a 

male o v e r ' t h e  p l a i n t i f f  as a r e s u l t  o f  t h i s  

p r o c e s s  d id  not  v i o l a t e  T i t l e  V II .  Fur

thermore,  a l though the m a g i s t r a t e ' s  o p i n i o n



22a

c oul d  have been more f i n e l y  tuned,  I do not  

uncover  any e r r o r  i nu r in g  t o  the d etr iment  

o f  the p l a i n t i f f .  We t h e r e f o r e  a f f i r m  the 

judgment f o r  the d e f e nd an t s .

I t  i s  s o  o r d e r e d .



23a

MI KVA, C i r c u i t  J u d g e ,  c o n c u r r i n g  in 

the r e s u l t : I agree what t here  i s  no b as i s  

f o r  r e v e r s i n g  the judgment f o r  the d e f e n 

dants .  I do not  agree that  Texas Depart 

ment o f  Community A f f a i r s  v.  B ur d i ne , 101 

S . C t .  1089 (1 981 ) ,  i s  d i s p o s i t i v e  o f  t h i s  

c a s e .  B u r d i n e  p r o p e r l y  put  t o  r e s t  the  

mi sc h ie vo u s  n o t i o n  that  once a prima f a c i e  

case  was e s t a b l i s h e d  by a T i t l e  VII com

p l a i n a n t ,  the employer had t o  prove  that  

the pe rso n h i r e d  or  promoted was more q u a l 

i f i e d  t han t he  c o m p l a i n a n t .  Even under  

Burdine ,  however,  t here  i s  a burden that  

t h e  e m p l o y e r  must  s a t i s f y  t o  o v e r c o m e  

a prima f a c i e  ca s e .  Although an employer 

need not  c o n v i n ce  the c our t  that  i t  chose 

the b e t t e r  a p p l i c a n t ,  i t  must pr es ent  an 

e x p l a n a t i o n  t h a t  i s  no t  o n l y  " c l e a r  and 

r e a s o n a b l y  s p e c i f i c , "  but a l s o  s u f f i c i e n t  

t o  a l l o w  " the  t r i e r  o f  f a c t  r a t i o n a l l y  t o  

co nc l ud e  that  the employment d e c i s i o n  had



24a

n o t  b e e n  m o t i v a t e d  by d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

animus. "  Burdine,  101 S . Ct .  at  1096. In 

the case  at bar ,  the m a g i s t r a t e  found that  

burden s a t i s f i e d .

The e x t r a  d i f f i c u l t y  p r e s e n t e d  by t h i s  

case i s  the m a g i s t r a t e ' s  g r a t u i t o u s  f i n d i n g  

that  the p l a i n t i f f  was more q u a l i f i e d  than 

the person h i r e d .  Employers u s u a l l y  a c t  in 

t h e i r  own b e s t  i n t e r e s t s ,  and i t  i s  some

what incongruous  t o  f i n d  t ha t  the employer  

chose a l e s s - q u a l i f i e d  man, r a t h e r  than a 

m o r e - q u a l i f i e d  woman, but d id  not  do so f o r  

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  r e as o ns .  Al though i t  may be 

d i f f i c u l t  t o  c o n v i n ce  a t r i e r  o f  f a c t  t hat  

an employer s e l e c t e d  a l e s s - q u a l i f i e d  p e r 

son f o r  a n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  r e a s o n ,  such 

b ehav io r  i s  not  a c t i o n a b l e .  In any c a s e ,  

as Judge Tamm's o p i n i o n  makes c l e a r ,  the 

b a s i s  f o r  f i n d i n g  St .  P e t e r  more q u a l i f i e d  

i s  tenuous at b e s t ,  and the m a g i s t r a t e  was 

u l t i m a t e l y  c onv inced  by the e v i d e n c e  that



25a

no d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  i n t e n t  was p r e s e n t .  

In the p o s t u r e  o f  t h i s  appeal  and a p p l i 

c a b l e  law, t h e r e f o r e ,  we need not  address  

e i t h e r  the p e r t i n e n c e  or  the adequacy o f  

t he  f i n d i n g  o f  s u p e r i o r  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .



26a

NICHOLS, Judge,  d i s s e n t i n g : Though the

s e r v i c e  r e c o r d s  o f  St .  P e t e r ,  S t a p l e s ,  and 

o t h e r  c a n d i d a t e s  w e r e  a v a i l a b l e ,  t h e  

i n t e r v i e w  panel  d id  not  even l o o k  at them 

because i t  assumed, e r r o n e o u s l y ,  t ha t  such 

r e c o r d s  had a l re ad y  been determined t o  be 

n e u t r a l  in t h e  w e i g h t  t h e y  added t o  o r  

s u b t r a c t e d  from one or  the o t h e r  c and id ac y .  

T h i s  i s  a f r i v o l o u s  method o f  making a 

s e l e c t i o n  f o r  pro mot i on ,  a type  o f  d e c i s i o n  

making suppose dl y  l ong s i n c e  banished from 

the e x e c u t i v e  branch.  I f a i l  t o  see  the 

mere e x p l a n t i o n  t h a t  d e f e n d a n t  f o l l o w e d  

such method as s a t i s f y i n g  the Burdine t e s t .  

The e v i d en ce  does not  a l l o w  the t r i e r  o f  

f a c t  t o  conc lude  that  the d e c i s i o n  was not 

mot i vated  by d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  animus. Even 

i f  not  r e q u i r e d  t o  p ersuade ,  d e f endant  must 

a r t i c u l a t e  a r e a s o n  f o r  i t s  c h o i c e  t h a t  

would be a c c e p t a b l e  i f  b e l i e v e d .  A f r i v o l 

ous  s e l e c t i o n  method f u r n i s h e s  e v i d e n c e



27a

o n l y  in a n e g a t i v e  se ns e ,  that  i s ,  that  the 

r e a l  d e c i s i o n  was made a t  a t i m e ,  by 

p e r s o n s ,  and by m e t h o d s ,  t h a t  d e f e n d a n t  

d o e s  n o t  s e e  f i t  t o  d i v u l g e .  The pr ima 

f a c i e  case  i s ,  t h e r e f o r e ,  unrebutted .  The 

i s s u e s  t o  my mind would be no d i f f e r e n t  i f  

d e f e n d a n t  e x p l a i n e d  i t  s e l e c t e d  S t a p l e s  

b e c a u s e  he was a Leo o r  a T a u r u s .  The 

l a t t e r  e x p l a n t i o n  might,  indeed,  be s u f f i 

c i e n t  f o r  some p r i v a t e  employers ,  but not  

f o r  t h e  U . S .  G o v e r n m e n t  w i t h  a l l  i t s  

s o l e m n  s t a n d a r d s  and p r o c e d u r e s .  The 

m a g i s t r a t e  in e f f e c t  found the o s t e n s i b l e  

s e l e c t i o n  m e t h o d  t o  be f r i v o l o u s ,  b u t  

f a i l e d  t o  draw the unavoidable  c o n c l u s i o n  

from her  own f i n d i n g .



28a

DECISION OF U.S.  MAGISTRATE, 
__________ J u l y  9, 1979

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

VIRGINIA M. ST. PETER,

P l a i n t i f f ,

v.

CLIFFORD ALEXANDER, e t  a l . ,

D e f e n d a n t s .

C i v i l  A c t i o n  No. 78-0187

OPINION

T h i s  a c t i o n  was b r o u g h t  p u r s u a n t  t o  

T i t l e  VII o f  the C i v i l  R i ght s  Act  o f  1964, 

as amended by the Equal Employment Oppor

t u n i t y  Act  o f  1972, 42 U . S . C . §2003-16,  e t .

s e q . S p e c i f i c a l l y ,  P l a i n t i f f  charged t hat



29a

she was n o n - s e l e c t e d  f o r  a promot ion t o  the 

p o s i t i o n  o f  S u pe r v i s o r y  M i l i t a r y  Personne l  

Management S p e c i a l i s t ,  GS-205-12,  because 

o f  her  se x ,  and t hat  a l e s s  q u a l i f i e d  male 

was s e l e c t e d .

By consent  o f  the p a r t i e s ,  t r i a l  was 

had b e f o r e  the U.S.  Ma gi s t ra te  on May 7, 8, 

and 9, 1979; the accompanying o r d e r  c o n s t i 

t u t e s  t h e  f i n a l  j u d g m e n t  i n  t h e  c a s e .

FINDINGS OF FACT

P l a i n t i f f  i s  a w h i t e  f e m a l e ,  who at 

the t ime o f  t r i a l  was employed as a M i l i 

t a r y  O c c up a t i o n a l  Management S p e c i a l i s t ,  

GS-205-12.  In August ,  1976, the p o s i t i o n  

in q u e s t i o n  became a v a i l a b l e  at  the U.S.  

Army M i l i t a r y  Personnel  Center  (MILPERCEN).

The incumbent  in t h i s  p o s i t i o n  i s  

r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r  f a c i l i t a t i n g  the nomination 

and s e l e c t i o n  o f  c and id at es  f o r  the U.S.



30a

M i l i t a r y  Academy. The d u t i e s  i n c l u d e  the 

d e t e r mi n at i o n  o f  the e l i g i b i l i t y  o f  c a n d i 

d a t e s ,  p u r s u a n t  t o  r e g u l a t i o n s ;  t h e  

conduct  o f  communicat ions with nominat ing 

a u t h o r i t i e s  and o t h e r s ;  the r o l e  o f  s p o k e s 

p e r s o n  f o r  t h e  Army on m a t t e r s  h a v i n g  

t o  do with nominat ions  and s e l e c t i o n s ;  and 

d i r e c t  communicat ions with c o n g r e s s i o n a l  

members and t h e i r  s t a f f s  on matters  c o n 

c e r n i n g  t h e  n o m i n a t i o n  and s e l e c t i o n  

p r o c e s s .

I n i t i a l l y ,  a l i s t  o f  f i v e  " b e s t  

q u a l i f i e d "  c a n d i d a t e s ,  which i nc l ud e d  both 

the p l a i n t i f f  and the s u c c e s s f u l  employee 

( " S t a p l e s " ) ,  was prepared  from an array  o f  

a l l  MILPERCEN e m p l o y e e s  who had b een  in 

g r a d e  GS -11  f o r  mo re  t h a n  12 m o n t h s .  

P l a i n t i f f  was t h e  o n l y  f e m a l e  on t h i s

l i s t .



31a

In t h e  a b s e n c e  o f  t he  d i r e c t o r ,  L t .  

C o l .  V i ncen t  Vespia  int erv ie we d S t a p l e s ;  

t h e  o t h e r  c a n d i d a t e s  w e r e  i n t e r v i e w e d  

by both Vespi a  and another  o f f i c e r .  Based 

on t h i s ,  V e s p i a  s e l e c t e d  S t a p l e s ,  and 

prepare d a form j u s t i f y i n g  t h i s  s e l e c t i o n .  

B e f o r e  t h i s  was f i n a l i z e d ,  the r a t i n g  and 

ranking panel  and the i n t e r v i e w  and s e l e c 

t i o n  panel  were r e c o n s t i t u t e d  t o  redo  the 

s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s .  Whether  t h i s  was a 

r e s u l t  o f  a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  complaint  f i l e d  

by the p l a i n t i f f ,  o r  by the d i s c o v e r y  o f  

some i r r e g u l a t i t i e s  in the o r i g i n a l  p r o c e 

dure ,  was never c o m p l e t e l y  c l e a r .

The s p e c i f i c a t i o n s  f o r  t h e  p o s i t i o n  

were r e v i s e d  and the second time t here  were 

nine ca nd i da te s  on the l i s t ,  a l l  o f  whom 

were  i n t e r v i e w e d  by a p a n e l  c o n s i s t i n g  

o f  t h e  D i r e c t o r  o f  OPMD, C o l .  H o r n i s h



32a

(whose d e p o s i t i o n  i s  in e v i d e n c e ) ,  and 

Lt .  C o l s .  Sands and J o i n e r ,  who t e s t i f i e d  

at the t r i a l .  C ar o l  B ur n e t t ,  a p e r s o n n e l  

s p e c i a l i s t  at  MILPERCEN, s a t  in on t h e  

i n t e r v i e w  p r o c e s s  as a v o l u n t e e r  i m p a r t i a l  

o b s e r v e r .  She a l s o  appeared as a w i t n e s s .

At the c o n c l u s i o n  o f  the i n t e r v i e w s ,  

each o f  the s e l e c t i n g  o f f i c i a l s  indepen

d e n t l y  c h o s e  S t a p l e s ,  and C o l .  H o r n i s h  

chose  him f o r  the p o s i t i o n .

While both P l a i n t i f f  and S t a p l e s  were 

i nc l ud e d  in each o f  the " b e s t  q u a l i f i e d "  

l i s t s ,  a c o m p a r i s o n  o f  t h e i r  r e s p e c t i v e  

b a c k g r o u n d s  i n d i c a t e s  t h a t  P l a i n t i f f ,  

among o t h e r s ,  appears f a r  b e t t e r  q u a l i f i e d  

f o r  the p o s i t i o n .  She has been a c i v i l i a n  

employee o f  the Army s i n c e  November,  1973. 

However,  her  s e r v i c e  background began in 

Wo r l d  War I I ,  when she  was an e n l i s t e d  

member o f  WAC. In March,  1951,  she  r e -



-  33a -

t u r n e d  t o  t h e  Army, c o m m i s s i o n e d  as an 

o f f i c e r  in the Corps ,  s e r v i n g  u n t i l  1969. 

At t h e  t ime  o f  h e r  r e t i r e m e n t ,  she was 

s e r v i n g  as a Lt .  C o l o n e l .  She has s ub st an

t i a l  a c a d e m i c  c r e d i t s ,  i n c l u d i n g  a B . A . 

in j o u r n a l i s m ,  and a M a s t e r ' s  d e g r e e  in 

e d u c a t i o n .  In a d d i t i o n ,  she took a number 

o f  Army c o u r s e s ;  s e r v e d  i n  p o s i t i o n s  

r e q u i r i n g  her t o  deal  with C o n g r e s s i o n a l  

and h ig h - r a n k i n g  m i l i t a r y  o f f i c i a l s ;  served 

as Re co rd er  on the r e g u l a r  Army Board,  and 

on the M i l i t a r y  Graduate Board.  In t hese  

p o s i t i o n s  she  s h a r e d  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  f o r  

e v a l u a t i n g ,  s e l e c t i n g  and p l a c i n g  r e s e r v e  

o f f i c e r s  and ROTC graduates  in the Regular  

Army. She served  in the Canal Zone 1967-68 

where her  d u t i e s  i nc lud ed  r e g u l a r  b r i e f i n g s  

f o r  high l e v e l  o f f i c e r s  and c i v i l i a n s .  She 

r e c e i v e d  two medals o f  commendation from

I

the Army.



34a

S t a p l e s  ( the  s e l e c t e d  c a n d i d a t e )  came 

t o  MILPERCEN 1964, as a c l e r k - t y p i s t ,  with 

a h i g h  s c h o o l  d i p l o m a ,  w h i c h  h a s  b e e n  

supplemented by v a r i o u s  Army c o u r s e s .  His 

assignment  j u s t  b e f o r e  the i n s t a n t  promo

t i o n  was in the E n l i s t e d  P er son ne l  Manage

ment D i r e c t o r a t e ,  which he t e s t i f i e d  was 

m o s t  h e l p f u l  i n  t h e  i n s t a n t  p o s i t i o n .

Among P l a i n t i f f ' s  w i t n e s s e s  was 

W i l l i a m  La ke ,  a r e t i r e d  C o l o n e l  in  t he  

Army. He was the F . O . I . A .  c o n t a c t  man in 

MILPERCEN, at a GS-12 l e v e l .  He t e s t i f i e d ,  

i n t e r  a l i a , t hat  the i n t e r v i e w  by the Board 

was v e r y  b r i e f  -  two t o  t h r e e  m i n u t e s  -

and p e r f u n c t o r y ; t h a t  he f e l t  i t  was a

w a s t e  o f t i m e , h a v i n g  b e e n  g i v e n no

c h a n c e  t o t a l k , and w i t h  no e x c h a n g e o f

i deas  o r  q u e s t i o n s .  He f u r t h e r  t e s t i f i e d  

that  he f e l t  he was q u a l i f i e d  f o r  the j o b  

because  o f  h i s  background;  and t ha t  he f e l t  

that  the u n f a i r n e s s  was not  s e x - r e l a t e d .



35a

L a ke ' s  t es t imony  as t o  the p e r f u n c t o r y  

c h a r a c t e r  o f  the i n t e r v i e w ,  as w e l l  as the 

n on -s ex  b i a s  o f  the s e l e c t i o n  was c o r r o b o r 

ated by the t es t imony  o f  another  P l a i n t i f f  

w i t n e s s ,  Robert  Hutton,  who a l s o  was on the 

" b e s t  q u a l i f i e d "  l i s t .

The s e l e c t i o n  o f  S t a p l e s  o v e r  t he  

o t h e r ,  a p p a r e n t l y  more q u a l i f i e d  c a n d i 

d a t e s ,  can be p a r t i a l l y  e x p l a i n e d  by an 

examinat ion  o f  the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s .  The 

f i n a l  s e l e c t i o n  panel  o f  t hree  male m i l i 

t a r y  o f f i c e r s  was t o t a l l y  i gnorant  o f  the 

backgrounds o f  the c a n d i d a t e s .  They had 

not  examined the p e r so n n e l  f i l e s  o f  any o f  

the c a n d i da te s  p r i o r  t o  the i n t e r v i e w s ,  and 

each t e s t i f i e d  they had never seen any o f  

t h e  c a n d i d a t e s  b e f o r e  t h e  i n t e r v i e w s .  

The r e  was t e s t i m o n y  t h a t  t h e  P l a i n t i f f ,  

Lake,  and Hutton had not  been advised  that  

t h e  p a n e l  members  had n o t  s e e n  t h e i r



36a

p e r s o n n e l  f o l d e r s ,  and had assumed t hat  the 

p a n e l i s t s  were f a m i l i a r  with t h e i r  q u a l i f i 

c a t i o n s  p r i o r  t o  the i n t e r v i e w s .

During the d e f e n s e  p r e s e n t a t i o n  each 

o f  t h e  p a n e l  m emb ers  ( C o l .  H o r n i s h ' s  

d e p o s i t i o n  was r e c e i v e d  i n t o  e v i d e n c e )  

t e s t i f i e d ,  in  e f f e c t ,  t h a t  S t a p l e s  was 

chosen f o r  " h i s  enthusiasm"  and because  he 

promised t o  " g i v e  110% t o  the j o b " .  This  

was c o n f i r m e d  by t h e  p e r s o n n e l  e x p e r t ,  

C a r o l  B u r n e t t  who was p r e s e n t  a t  t h e  

i n t e r v i e w s  as  an i m p a r t i a l  o b s e r v e r .  

No s t a t i s t i c a l  e v i d e n c e  was o f f e r e d  by 

e i t h e r  p a r t y .

In sum, from a l l  the t es t imony  adduced 

at the t r i a l ,  the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  appears 

t o  have been t o t a l l y  s u b j e c t i v e ,  based on 

f l e e t i n g  impr ess i ons  ga ined  during b r i e f  

i n t e r v i e w s  ( e s t i m a t e s  ranged from 2 t o  15 

m i n u t e s ) ,  and wi thou t  any c o n s i d e r a t i o n  t o



37a

the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  o f  the c and id at es  who 

w e r e  b e i n g  c o n s i d e r e d ,  o t h e r  t h a n  t h e  

i m p r e s s i o n s  made ( o r  n o t  made)  d u r i n g  

the i n t e r v i e w s .

From a l l  the ev id ence  adduced by both 

s i d e s ,  t h i s  C o u r t  c a n  o n l y  c o n c l u d e  

t hat  the s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s  f o r  t h i s  impor

t a n t  and s e n s i t i v e  p o s i t i o n  r e s e m b l e d  

n o t h i n g  s o  much as t he  game o f  " e e n i e ,  

meenie,  minie ,  m o e , " with the r e s u l t s  being  

o f  about that  q u a l i t y .

C l e a r l y ,  the P l a i n t i f f  was d i sa dv an

taged by a l l  o f  t h i s .  So,  however,  were 

MILPERCEN, and the Messers Lake and Hutton.  

And w h a t e v e r  t he  C o u rt  my t h i n k  o f  t he  

s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e s s ,  i t  i s  not in the p e r s o n 

n e l  b u s i n e s s .  T h e r e f o r e ,  on t he  f a c t s ,  

judgment  can be f ou nd  f o r  t h e  P l a i n t i f f  

o n l y  i f  her n o n - s e l e c t i o n  were based on the 

f a c t  o f  her sex .  On a l l  o f  the e v i d e n c e ,



38a

t e s t i m o n i a l  and e x h i b i t s ,  the Court  does 

not so  f i n d .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

As both p a r t i e s  r e c o g n i z e ,  the seminal  

c a s e  on t h i s  i s s u e  i s  M c D o n n e l l  D o u g l a s  

Corp,  v.  Green , 411 U.S.  792 ( 19 73 ) .  This

o p i n i o n  s p e c i f i e s  s e v e r a l  e lements  which 

must be proved by a p l a i n t i f f ,  incudi ng  her 

m e m b e r s h i p  i n  a p r o t e c t e d  c l a s s ;  h e r  

a p p l i c a t i o n  and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  f o r  the  j ob  

in q u e s t i o n ;  her  r e j e c t i o n ,  n o t wi t h s t a n d i n g  

her q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ;  and that  the j o b  was 

f i l l e d  o t h e r w i s e .  I f  t h i s  prima f a c i e  case  

i s  made by the P l a i n t i f f ,  the burden then 

s h i f t s  t o  the employer  t o  a r t i c u l a t e  "some 

l e g i t i m a t e ,  n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  re as on"  f o r  

the n o n - s e l e c t i o n  (Furnco C o n s t r u c t i o n  v . 

W a t e r s , 98 S.C.  2943,  ( 19 76 ) .

To make out  the r e q u i s i t e  prima f a c i e  

c a s e ,  the P l a i n t i f f  must prove  more than



39a

the mere f a c t  o f  the promotion o f  a q u a l i 

f i e d  male o ver  a q u a l i f i e d  female (Olson v . 

P h i l c o - F o r d , 531 F. 2d 474, [10th C i r c . ,

1 9 7 4 ] ) .  Had t here  been no tes t imony  from 

Lake and Hutton,  the P l a i n t i f f  would have 

d i f f i c u l t y  in making o u t  a pr  ima f a c i e  

c a s e ,  d e s p i t e  t h e  t e s t i m o n y  t h a t  t h e  

o r i g i n a l  j o b  s p e c i f i c a t i o n s  c a l l e d  f o r  a 

W e s t  P o i n t  g r a d u a t e ,  u n d e r  40 y e a r s  

o f  age.  This  was amended at the i n s t r u c 

t i o n s  o f  t he  p e r s o n n e l  o f f i c e ,  as b e i n g  

c l e a r l y  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y .  However,  taking  

a l l  the t es t imony  t o g e t h e r ,  i t  was c l e a r  

that  however odd the s e l e c t i o n  procedure  

was, i t  was not  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  on sexual  

l i n e s ,  a f f e c t i n g ,  as i t  d i d ,  both male and 

female c a n d i d a t e s .  (The P l a i n t i f f  n e i t h e r  

c l a i m e d  nor  t r i e d  t o  p r o v e  he r  s u p e r i o r  

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  ov er  her o t h e r  w i t n e s s e s .  )



40a

The Supreme Court  has r e c e n t l y  r e a f 

f i rmed the p r i n c i p l e  a r t i c u l a t e d  in O l s o n , 

in uphold ing  the Massachuset ts  v e t e r a n s '  

p r e f e r e n c e  s t a t u t e .  W h i l e  r e c o g n i z i n g  

i t s  s e v e r e  impact on women g e n e r a l l y ,  the 

Court  p o i n t s  out  t hat  " s i g n i f i c a n t  numbers 

o f  nonveterans  are men, and a l l  nonveterans  

-  male as w e l l  as female -  are p l a c e d  at 

a d i s a dv a n t ag e .  Too many men are a f f e c t e d  

(by t h i s  s t a t u t e )  t o  permit  the i n f e r e n c e  

t h a t  t h e  s t a t u t e  i s  b u t  a p r e t e x t  f o r  

p e r f e r r i n g  men o v e r  w o m e n . " ( P e r s o n n e 1 

A d m i n i s t r a t o r  o f  M a s s a c h u s e t t s  v.  Feeney , 

No. 78-233 ,  June 5, 1979. )
'l

Fur t he r ,  t he re  i s  not hi ng  un lawf ul  per  

se about the use o f  s u b j e c t i v e  c r i t e r i a ,  

which "are  not  t o  be condemned as unlawful  

per  s e ,  f o r  in a l l  f a i r n e s s  t o  a p p l i c a n t s  

and employers  a l i k e ,  d e c i s i o n s  about h i r i n g  

and pro mo tio n in s u p e r v i s o r y  and manager ial



41a

j o b s  c a n n o t  r e a l i s t i c a l l y  be made u s i n g  

o b j e c t i v e  s t a n d a r d s  a l o n e . "  ( R o g e r s  v . 

I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Paper  C o . ,  510 F. 2d 1340

[ 8th  C i r c . , 1 9 7 5 ] ;  s e e  a l s o ,  H e s t e r_v .

Southern Rai lway Co . , 497 F. 2d 1374 [5th

C i r c . ,  1 9 7 4 ] . )

T h e r e f o r e ,  in c o n s i d e r a t i o n  o f  a l l  the 

e v i d e n c e  and t h e  law c i t e d  b o t h  in t h i s  

o p i n i o n  and in t he  b r i e f s  f i l e d  by bo t h 

p a r t i e s ,  the case i s  d ec id ed  in f a v o r  o f  

t h e  d e f e n d a n t ,  and t he  P l a i n t i f f ' s  Com

p l a i n t  i s  d i s m i s s e d  w i t h  p r e j u d i c e .  An 

o r d e r  o f  e v e n  d a t e  i s  f i l e d  h e r e w i t h .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE



ORDER OF THE
MAGISTRATE DISMISSING COMPLAINT

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

VIRGINIA M. ST. PETER,

P l a i n t i f f ,

v.

CLIFFORD ALEXANDER,

Defendant

C i v i l  A c t i o n  No. 78-0187 

ORDER

In accord ance  with the Opinion f i l e d  

he re wi t h ,  i t  i s  by the Court  t h i s  9th day 

o f  J u l y  1979

ORDERED t h a t  t h e  C o m p l a i n t  o f  the  

P l a i n t i f f ,  V i r g i n i a  M. St .  P e t e r  be ,  and i t



43a

i s  h ere by ,  d is mi ss ed  with p r e j u d i c e ,  f o l 

l owing a t r i a l  on the m e r i t s .

This  i s  a f i n a l  judgment.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE



44a

ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT APPROVING 
MAGISTRATE'S OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

VIRGINIA M. ST. PETER,

P l a i n t  i f f , 

v.

CLIFFORD ALEXANDER,

Defendant

C i v i l  A c t i o n  No. 78-0187

ORDER

Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n  o f  the o b j e c t i o n s  

o f  the p l a i n t i f f  t o  the Opinion o f  the U.S.  

M a g i s t r a t e  f i l e d  on J u l y  9 ,  1 9 7 9 ,  t h e

re sp ons e  o f  the de fenda nt s  t h e r e t o ,  and the 

e n t i r e  r e c o r d  h e r e i n ,  the Court  f i n d s  that



45a

the F ind ing s  o f  Fact  and C o nc l u s i o n s  o f  Law 

e nt e re d  by the Ma gi s t ra te  are not c l e a r l y  

e r r o n e o u s .  A c c o r d i n g l y ,  i t  i s  by t h e  

C o u r t  t h i s  1 6 t h  d ay  o f  A u g u s t ,  1 9 7 9 ,  

ORDERED t h a t  t h e  o b j e c t i o n s  o f  t he  

p l a i n t i f f  are o v e r r u l e d ,  and i t  i s  f u r t h e r  

ORDERED that  judgment s h a l l  be ent ered  

f o r  the de f endant .

United S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  Judge



46a

ANNOUNCEMENT OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 
BY COURT OF APEALS, J u l y  1, 1981

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

J ul y  1, 1981

VIRGINIA M. ST. PETER,

A p p e l l a n t , 

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

D e f en d an t .

RE: Appeal  No. 79-2066 -  V i r g i n i a  M. St .
P e t e r  v.  Se c .  o f  the Army

Dear S i r :

Enc l ose d  herewi t h are t hr ee  (3)  c o p i e s  
o f  the o p i n i o n  in the above e n t i t l e d  c a s e .

P l e a s e  note  t ha t  the judgment has been 
e nt e r e d  on the same date  as the o p i n i o n  and 
i s  f o r  mandate p urposes  o n l y .

Very t r u l y  y o ur s ,

A ni t a  D. Hol t  
Opinions  C lerk



47a

ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
DENYING REHEARING, August 13, 1981

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

September Term, 1980 

No. 79-2066 

ARGUED 12-11/80

VIRGINIA M. ST. PETER,

A p p e l l a n t , 

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

BEFORE: Tamm and Mikva, C i r c u i t  Judges and
P h i l i p  N i c h o l s ,  J r . , *
Judge,  United S t a t e s  Court  o f  Claims

* S i t t i n g  by d e s i g n a t i o n  pursuant  t o  T i t l e  28 
U.S.C.  §293 ( a ).



48a

ORDER

On c o n s i d e r a t i o n  o f  a p p e l l a n t s ' s  

p e t i t i o n  f o r  r e h e a r i n g ,  f i l e d  J u l y  15,  

1981, i t  i s

ORDERED by the Court  t hat  the a f o r e 

s a i d  p e t i t i o n  f o r  r e h e a r i n g  i s  d e n i e d .

Per Curiam

United S t a t e s  Court  o f  Appeals

f o r  the D i s t r i c t  o f  Columbia C i r c u i t

FOR THE COURT:

George A. F i s h e r ,
Clerk

F i l e d  Aug. 13, 1981

GEORGE A. FISHER
CLERK BY:

Robert  A. Bonner 
C h i e f  Deputy Clerk



49a

ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
DENYING SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING 

en b a n c , Aug. 13, 1981

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

September Term, 1980 

No. 79-2066 

ARGUED 12-11/80

VIRGINIA M. ST. PETER,

A p p e l l a n t ,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

BEFORE: Robinson,  C h ie f  Judge,  Wright ,
McGowan, Tamm, MacKinnon, Robb, 
Wi lkey ,  Wald, Mikva, Edwards and 
Ginsburg,  C i r c u i t  Judges and 
P h i l i p  N i c h o l s ,  J r . , *  Judge,  
United S t a t es  Court  o f  Claims

* S i t t i n g  by d e s i g n a t i o n  pursuant  t o  T i t l e  
28 U.S.C.  § 2 9 3 ( a ) .



50a

O R D E R

A p p e l l a n t ' s  s u g g e s t i o n  f o r  re he a r i n g  

en banc  has been c i r c u l a t e d  t o  t h e  f u l l  

C o u r t .  A m a j o r i t y  o f  t h e  C o u r t  has n o t  

v ot ed  in f a v o r  t h e r e o f .  On c o n s i d e r a t i o n  

o f  the f o r e g o i n g ,  i t  i s

ORDERED by the Court  en banc t ha t  the 

a f o r e s a i d  s u g g e s t i o n  i s  d en i ed .

Per Curiam

United S t a t e s  Court  o f  Appeals

f o r  the D i s t r i c t  o f  Columbia C i r c u i t

FOR THE COURT:

George A. F i s h e r ,
Clerk

F i l e d  Aug. 13, 1981 

GEORGE A. FISHER
CLERK BY: ______________________

Robert  A. Bonner 
C h i e f  Deputy Clerk

C i r c u i t  Judge Wright  would grant  the s u g g e s t i o n  
f o r  r e h e a r i n g  en banc



MEILEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C 219
Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.
Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.
St. Peter v Marsh for a Writ of Certiorari

Impact area

Topic

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
