Opinion ID: 501743
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Hiring Practices

Text: 77 The EEOC maintains that the district court erred in determining that none of its evidence regarding the subjective nature of Sears' hiring process or regarding Sears' testing practices supported the EEOC's statistical analyses or provided any credible proof of discrimination by Sears. With respect to the subjectivity of Sears' hiring process, the EEOC argued that there was no formal training and a lack of written instructions for Sears' interviewers regarding the qualities to look for in commission sales applicants. In addition, the EEOC pointed to what it referred to as a highly masculine description of a commission salesperson found in the Retail Testing Manual, which included phrases such as active, has a lot of drive, possesses considerable vigor, and likes work which requires physical energy. The EEOC also notes that a Sears official admitted that this reflected characteristics that on average more men possess than women. The EEOC cites numerous cases for the proposition that a lack of objective standards regarding employment decisions can be a discriminatory practice because such a system with its lack of safeguards may easily be subject to abuse. See Davis v. Weidner, 596 F.2d 726, 732 (7th Cir.1979) (court noted absence or extreme generality of any predetermined standards for selecting employees, the failure to record evaluations of job applicants, and the absence of minorities on the employment decisionmaking bodies can add credence of the claim of an aggrieved employee, especially when the employer does not rely on objective, easily measured criteria for his employment decision); Stewart v. General Motors Corp., 542 F.2d 445, 450-51 (7th Cir.1976) (court found discriminatory promotion practices where a process was highly subjective and loosely structured, the supervisory recommendations being important but there were no safeguards and no written guidelines regarding promotion criteria), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 919, 97 S.Ct. 2995, 53 L.Ed.2d 1105 (1977); see also Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1131 (11th Cir.1984) (subjective procedures in context of promotion included word of mouth regarding openings and informal review procedures); Harris v. Birmingham Board of Education, 712 F.2d 1377, 1383 (11th Cir.1983) (lack of objective hiring standards contributed to [plaintiff's] establishment of a prima facie case of racial discrimination in hiring); Williams v. Colorado Springs School District, 641 F.2d 835, 842 (10th Cir.1981) (observing that subjective promotion and employment criteria afford possibilities of abuse); Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 348, 358-59 (5th Cir.1972) (discriminatory promotion/transfer procedures where foreman's recommendation is most important factor in promotion process, foremen are given no written instructions regarding qualifications necessary for promotion, controlling standards were vague and subjective, hourly employees not notified of promotion opportunities and no safeguards). 78 Sears concedes that its hiring process was subjective, but argues that subjectivity is a necessary part of the hiring process and it does not follow that because a hiring process is subjective, it is necessarily discriminatory. Cf. Movement for Opportunity & Equality v. General Motors Corp., 622 F.2d 1235, 1277 (7th Cir.1980) (court noted that subjectivity was inherent in promotion system, but evidence established that system contained checks and balances and, in addition, the promotion system included procedures to fulfill affirmative action obligations); Mozee v. Jeffboat, Inc., 746 F.2d 365, 371, 372 (7th Cir.1984) (subjective and other intangible factors may influence employment decisions and ... even subjective misjudgments may not necessarily be the basis for Title VII liability, in addition, the probative value of statistical evidence may be diminished where an employer genuinely relies on subjective factors in making decisions and where data are incomparable (emphasis in original)); Williams v. Colorado Springs School District, 641 F.2d 835, 842 (10th Cir.1981) (subjective definitions of employment selection and promotion criteria not unlawful per se, because some subjectivity cannot realistically be avoided in making hiring and promotions decisions). Sears argues that subjectivity is especially important in its affirmative action efforts. Cf. Movement for Opportunity & Equality, 622 F.2d at 1277. 79 The question, then, is how much subjectivity is permissible. We agree with the Ninth Circuit that a court must consider an employer's use of subjective criteria ... with the other facts and circumstances of the case. Casillas v. United States Navy, 735 F.2d 338, 345 (9th Cir.1984). While it may have been better policy for Sears to have had written instructions and formal training for interviewers regarding qualities to look for in commission sales applicants, we cannot say on this record that Sears exercised so much subjectivity as to engage in a discriminatory practice. In addition, the court's finding regarding Sears' affirmative action efforts appears to obviate impermissible subjectivity on the part of Sears' interviewers. 80 Regarding the description of commission salespersons found in the Retail Testing Manual, the EEOC argues that this instruction was reflected in oral instructions to interviewers. The district court found that there was no evidence that this historical description had any influence on hiring decisions, particularly during the years in question, that Sears managers often paid no attention to information in the manual, and that [t]here is no basis in the record for concluding that this description had any negative impact on the selection of women for commission sales. Sears II, 628 F.Supp. at 1318. After consulting the record, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in this finding. 81 The EEOC also argues that the district court erred in finding that one aspect of Sears' testing practices was not discriminatory. The EEOC contends that a vigor scale, one of seven scales on the Thurstone Temperament Schedule, contained questions that would more likely be answered affirmatively by men, such as Have you played on a football team? The district court agreed that these questions would more likely be answered affirmatively by men, but chose to believe Sears' witnesses, who testified that many Sears applicants were not tested, or if they were tested, it was not until after they were hired. The court also believed Sears' managers, who testified that the test had little impact on any decision to hire and that test scores were adjusted for women. The EEOC argues that it is implicit in the district court's phrasing of the impact of the test that it had at least some impact. In light of the court's conclusion that there was no credible evidence that a woman's vigor score ever prevented her from being hired for commission sales at Sears, however, we find the court did not clearly err in determining this aspect of Sears' testing did not have enough impact, on its own, to prove a case of discrimination.