Murphy v. Milwaukee Area Technical College

976 F. Supp. 1212, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14237, 76 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 405, 1997 WL 574930
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedSeptember 15, 1997
Docket96-C-0117
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 976 F. Supp. 1212 (Murphy v. Milwaukee Area Technical College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murphy v. Milwaukee Area Technical College, 976 F. Supp. 1212, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14237, 76 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 405, 1997 WL 574930 (E.D. Wis. 1997).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GORENCE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Paul Murphy filed this action alleging reverse discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Specifically, the plaintiff, a licensed Wisconsin attorney, alleges that defendant Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) did not hire him for a full-time paralegal teaching position for which he was the most qualified candidate because of his race and sex. This case was assigned to this court according to the random assignment of civil cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 13.03 (E.D.Wis.). The parties have consented to United States magistrate judge jurisdiction. Presently pending is the defendant’s motion for summary judgment which will be addressed herein.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The relevant facts in- this case are largely undisputed. The plaintiff, a white male, is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Wisconsin who taught part-time at MATC. In 1990, a full-time paralegal instructor position in the Business Division at MATC became vacant. Dr. Philip Langerman, MATC’s Vice President of Academic Affairs, discussed filling the position with Patricia Holy, then Dean of the Business Division, and Ron Radtke, Associate Dean of the Business Division. A personnel requisition form was prepared and forwarded to the Human Resources Division which drafted a job posting for the paralegal instructor position. The job was posted on July 27, 1990. The personnel requisition form indicated that this was an “underutilized position” in regard to blacks and Hispanies. On August 14, 1990, the plaintiff submitted an application for the paralegal teaching position.

The “Qualifications” listed on the July 27, 1990, posting included the following: 1) a bachelor’s degree and a law degree; 2) a minimum of two years of experience in the practice of law; 3) ability to meet state vocational, technical and adult education (VTAE) certification requirements; 4) ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing; 5) ability to relate successfully with students and staff; 6) experience in the utilization of a paralegal is preferred; and, 7) previous teaching experience is desirable. The plaintiff states that by letter dated September 26, 1990, he was advised that the job was being reposted and that he would be considered for the position unless he affirmatively withdrew his name.

On October 2, 1990, the position was re-posted based on changes in the job qualifications. The October, 1990, posting added to item 2 of the “Qualifications” section experience as a paralegal as an alternative to experience in the practice of law. Item 6 was changed to add experience as a paralegal as an alternative to experience in the utilization of a paralegal. The posting also added as Item 8: “Experience with computers in a law office was desirable.”

Sixty-six applications were received and a screening committee consisting of Dorsey Kendrick, the Dean of the Business Division, Mike Walsh, Dean of Printing, James Miersma, Don Lubner and Ron Radtke, the Associate Dean of the Business Division, determined who would be interviewed. Miersma and Lubner were attorneys on the MATC staff who taught paralegal courses. The plaintiff was one of 15 candidates interviewed by the screening committee. He was interviewed on December 5, 1990. The plaintiff received the highest average score of all the candidates interviewed.

Initially, the screening committee recommended three candidates to proceed to the next level of interviews, a white female and two white males, one of whom was the plaintiff. A black male applicant who scored second highest in the interview was not recommended for the next step in the process. When Vicky Beckman, the personnel specialist in the Human Resources Department responsible for recruitment for the paralegal *1214 instructor position, noticed that the black male applicant had not been recommended for the next set of interviews, she asked Mr. Radtke if he would recommend four people for the next interviews. He agreed, and after discussing the list with Dr. Romanger Fredericks, the Director of Human Relations, Ms. Beckman added the black male applicant to the list of candidates. Thus, the plaintiff was one of four candidates recommended to the hiring authority.

In a memorandum dated January 11,1991, Dr. Fredricks wrote to Ms. Beckman expressing concerns about the effect of the changes in listed qualifications, and several questions used in the interview sessions. He wrote as follows:

After a very careful review of the materials and the conversation that you and I had, I would like to share with you my: Findings....
That the job advertisement for the Paralegal Instructor was posted on July 27, 1990 and was changed inappropriately on October 2, 1990 to reflect the changes:
a. “Two (2) years of experience in the practice of law” changed to “2 years experience as a paralegal or in the practice of law.”
b. “Experience in utilization of a paralegal is preferred” was changed to “experience as a paralegal or experience in the utilization of a paralegal is preferred.”
c. “Experience with computers in a law office setting is desirable” was not a qualification on the first posting.
Qualifications included a law degree. A law degree may be preferred but it is not a qualification for the position. As you know, consideration of degrees or formal education in making hiring decisions may be unlawful when there is a disparate impact on some groups such as minorities and the employer is unable to show that a degree or education is necessary for the performance of job.
Several questions used in the interview session were inappropriate and/or unlawful:
Question #2 ... Do you currently hold a license to practice law? In which state and what is your number?
Nowhere in your announcement was it indicated that a license was required or preferred. It must be understood that an employer may wish to inquire as to an applicant’s educational history, but care should have been taken to ensure that only clearly job related education was considered.
Question # 8 ... “Other legal specialty courses in the program are Legal Research, Civil Procedure, Legal Writing, Litigation, Trusts and Estates, Collections, and Bankruptcy. Please indicate your qualifications and your interest in teaching each of these courses;”
Question #9 ... “Do you have any other training or experience that might lead to initiation of additional legal specialty areas?;”
Question #10 ... “Please give us a few examples which demonstrate your ability to relate to a culturally diverse student population;” and Question #11 ... “Why did you leave your present position?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anna K. D'antonio v. the Newark Public Schools, Etc.
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2025
Rene Edghill Smith v. New Brunswick Board of Education
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2025
Mower v. Westfall
177 F. Supp. 2d 940 (S.D. Iowa, 2001)
Douglas M. Mills v. Health Care Service Corporation
171 F.3d 450 (Seventh Circuit, 1999)
Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler
723 A.2d 944 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1999)
Mississippi Department of Human Services v. Baum
730 So. 2d 58 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1998)
Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler
704 A.2d 1017 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
976 F. Supp. 1212, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14237, 76 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 405, 1997 WL 574930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-milwaukee-area-technical-college-wied-1997.