Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—M.D. Tenn.: 65-year-old not hired to teaching position advances claim under ‘relative qualifications‘ test, (Mar 10, 2025)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

The candidate presented evidence she was “as qualified” as the selected applicant, along with other evidence probative of discrimination.

A 65-year-old high school employee passed over for a position as a cosmetology teacher at another county high school for a candidate approximately 20 years younger than her produced sufficient evidence to survive the Sumner County Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment on her age discrimination claims, a federal district court in Tennessee has held. The candidate presented evidence that the reasons given for the hiring decision were pretext under the Sixth Circuit’s “relative qualifications” test, that she was at least as qualified as the person hired and that there was other evidence that was probative of discrimination (Sanders v. Sumner County Board of Education, No. 3:23-cv-00434 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 7, 2025)).

Qualifications. The candidate, who works at one high school in the county as an assistant director of daycare, applied for a new cosmetology teaching position at another county high school. When she applied and interviewed for the position, she was 65 years old. In addition to her experience working in a high school, the candidate is a licensed cosmetologist and cosmetology instructor, with more than 17 years of experience as a hairstylist, including having taught hairstyling and cosmetology to adults and high school students. She also served as a substitute cosmetology teacher at her current high school, where she implemented lesson plans, and demonstrated various cosmetology procedures.

Long-term hire. During the application process, the school’s principal told every candidate he “wanted someone to stay long term to build the program like a coach would do.” At her interview, the candidate responded by stating she was in good health and had “no plans to retire.” The principal said that was “good to know.” It was undisputed that age was not expressly discussed during the interview.

Not a finalist. Ultimately, the candidate was not one of the two finalists for the position. The woman who was selected for the position allegedly impressed the decision makers with her passion for the students, her ability to relate to the students, her willingness to work closely with another more established cosmetology program in the district, her vision, willingness to collaborate, and desire to “bring in the community and advertise and work hard at it and network the connections in the community,” according to the principal.

Subsequently, the candidate sued the School Board under the ADEA and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, claiming it was obvious she was more qualified than the woman who was hired, and that she was not hired because of her age. The Board moved for summary judgment.

Nondiscriminatory reason. Since there was no smoking gun or other direct evidence, the candidate offered circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Therefore, her claims were evaluated under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

The parties did not dispute that the candidate established her prima facie case. And the court easily found that the Board established a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring decision. The chosen candidate was a licensed cosmetologist, who worked in that field, and who also had experience teaching specialized classes and courses. The principal testified he felt she was the best candidate due to her “vision and [] passion” for the students, and her willingness to collaborate and work hard to network and connect with the community. In addition, the assistant principal who oversees the CTE program testified that in contrast to the hired candidate, the candidate did not present a vision for the program.

Relative qualifications. With the Board having presented a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, the burden shifted back to the candidate to establish that the reasons given for that decision were pretext. In a failure-to-hire case such as this, the Sixth Circuit has recognized that pretext may be proven through the “relative qualifications” test. To survive summary judgment under that test, a plaintiff must present evidence that either: (1) she was “the plainly superior candidate, such that no reasonable employer” would have chosen the hired candidate over the plaintiff; or (2) she was “as qualified [] if not better qualified” than the hired applicant, and the record includes evidence probative of discrimination.

Plainly superior? The candidate argued that she was “plainly superior” based on her experience as a stylist and teacher within the industry, that she is a licensed cosmetologist with 17 years of experience as a hairstylist and instructor of hairstylists, and that she served as a substitute cosmetology teacher at another high school. On the other hand, the Board pointed to evidence that the hired candidate was superior because of her passion and vision for the students, ability to relate to them, and plans to work in and with the community. The hired candidate is also a licensed cosmetologist with teaching experience. As such, the candidate did not meet the threshold of establishing she was “plainly superior.”

As qualified. However, the candidate did show she was “as qualified” as the woman who was hired for the position, and there was evidence probative of discrimination, including the evidence during the candidate’s interview that the principal expressed that he wanted someone who would stay long term to build a program like a coach, and that he was pleased the candidate had no plans to retire. In addition, there were disputed issues of fact as to whether another cosmetology teacher at a different school told the candidate that the Board is always looking for younger people. This was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude the Board failed to hire the candidate because of her age.

The case is No. 3:23-cv-00434.

Judge: Campbell, W., Jr.

Attorneys: Douglas B. Janney, III (Law Office of Douglas B. Janney III) for Mitzi J. Sanders. Casey Leigh Miller (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings) for Sumner County Board of Education dba Sumner County Schools.

Companies: Sumner County Board of Education

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination PublicEmployees StateLawClaims TennesseeNews