The Courts as Sociologists

In 1974, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission selected Thomas Hadfield, a white applicant, to be its Philadelphia District Office Director. George Rogers, a black whose application had been rejected, brought suit in federal court, charging that the EEOC—the Federal Government’s anti-discrimination agency—had itself been guilty of race discrimination in making the selection. The court found that Hadfield was better qualified than Rogers; that the selection officer—herself black—had made her choice primarily on that basis; and that the hiring decision had been approved by superiors who had no knowledge of either applicant’s race.

However, the selection officer also stated that because the three other EEOC directorships in the area were filled by blacks, she had thought that choosing a white “would reflect a racial balance.” Despite Hadfield’s superior qualifications, and despite the fact that the selection officer’s concern for “racial balance” was found by the court to have been “never more than a make-weight” in the selection process, the court concluded that Rogers had been the victim of illegal discrimination. Accordingly, it awarded him back pay at the level of the director’s job from the date Hadfield took office, which pay was to continue until the next opening in the Philadelphia area was filled, or until Rogers himself accepted another position with equal or better pay.

PR

About the Author

Peter J. Rusthoven

Featured Tags

In 1974, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission selected Thomas Hadfield, a white applicant, to be its Philadelphia District Office Director. George Rogers, a black whose application had been rejected, brought suit in federal court, charging that the EEOC—the Federal Government’s anti-discrimination agency—had itself been guilty of race discrimination in making the selection. The court found that Hadfield was better qualified than Rogers; that the selection officer—herself black—had made her choice primarily on that basis; and that the hiring decision had been approved by superiors who had no knowledge of either applicant’s race.

However, the selection officer also stated that because the three other EEOC directorships in the area were filled by blacks, she had thought that choosing a white “would reflect a racial balance.” Despite Hadfield’s superior qualifications, and despite the fact that the selection officer’s concern for “racial balance” was found by the court to have been “never more than a make-weight” in the selection process, the court concluded that Rogers had been the victim of illegal discrimination. Accordingly, it awarded him back pay at the level of the director’s job from the date Hadfield took office, which pay was to continue until the next opening in the Philadelphia area was filled, or until Rogers himself accepted another position with equal or better pay.