McMillian v. City of Los Angeles
Plaintiffs, three African-American employees of the City of Los Angeles (City) took a competitive examination for promotion to supervisor. They passed the exam and were placed, with other successful candidates, on a register of eligibles from which supervisors were to be chosen for the next two years. An initial round of interviews was held and four people, not including plaintiffs, were promoted. Thereafter, although further supervisor positions had opened, the City did not conduct additional interviews from the register of eligibles. Instead, the City chose to lower the requirements to sit for the exam, and offered a second exam with the reduced requirements. The Citys decision to reduce the requirements and offer the second examination was apparently made with the intent of enabling one particular employee, Kent Carlson, to sit for the exam and qualify for promotion. Carlson was one of several employees who took the second exam, and whose scores on the second exam were higher than plaintiffs scores on the first exam.
Thereafter, when the City conducted interviews for further promotions, it took candidates from both registers of eligibles, based on the applicants scores. Although all three plaintiffs were eventually promoted, they were promoted after Carlson and others who had taken only the second test. Believing that the second exam was instituted to favor Carlson because he is White, plaintiffs brought suit claiming racial discrimination in the delay of their promotions. Subsequently, one of the three plaintiffs, Lloyd McMillian, was terminated from his supervisory position shortly before the end of his probationary period. Plaintiff McMillian amended his complaint to allege that his termination was in retaliation for his pursuit of the racial discrimination action. The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of all plaintiffs on all causes of action. On appeal, the City contends the evidence is insufficient to support the verdicts. We agree in part. While there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the second exam was instituted to favor Carlson, there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the City favored Carlson because of his race. Court therefore reverse the judgment insofar as it is based on plaintiffs cause of action for race discrimination.
Comments on McMillian v. City of Los Angeles