Opinion ID: 64041
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Systematic Practices of the School District

Text: Stover argues that the district court erroneously refused to permit evidence of the School District's business habit and practice of not advertising positions or allowing competition for positions. Stover contends that it was plainly discriminatory not to advertise the position. She also states that pattern and practice evidence should have been allowed to prove intent and/or pretext. Further, Stover argues that the School District's hiring system allowed ... complete racial and gender discrimination. The School District argues that regardless of the district court's pre-trial exclusion of this evidence by granting the School District's motion in limine, the jury heard the evidence, and therefore, the issue is moot. [3] At trial, Stover testified that the district was culpable for failing to advertise th[e] position. Dr. Davis testified to the following: Q. Did Mr. Oubre have any competition for the job? A. No. Q. Did you place any advertisement for the position? A. No. The jury, therefore, heard evidence that the School District did not advertise the position for which Oubre was hired. The School District also contends that failure to have a policy requiring employment positions to be advertised does not mean its hiring practices are discriminatory. We agree that the lack of a policy requiring advertisement under these circumstances is not evidence of discrimination. Stover provides no Mississippi law or School Board policy requiring the School District to advertise the position for which Oubre was hired or any other position in the district. Also, Stover's contention that the School District's systematic practice of not advertising positions allowed complete racial and gender discrimination is unsupported by any evidence in the trial record. We find no reversible error on this issue.