Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—E.D. La.: EEOC to face trial on acting director’s claim she was denied permanent gig because she is an Indian woman, (Sep 24, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The 25-year career employee claimed the Black male decisionmaker, who had criticized her accent and trip to India, manipulated the hiring and interview process to favor of a Black male who had been at the agency for less than 2 years.

A female and Indian born EEOC enforcement manager and acting field office director survived summary judgment on her Title VII claims alleging her Black male superior engaged in race, sex, and national original discrimination when he passed her over for a promotion to the permanent director position, and instead selected a Black male candidate with far less tenure at the agency. A federal magistrate judge in Louisiana held that although a comparison of qualifications was insufficient to suggest a discriminatory motive, pretext could be inferred from the decisionmaker’s alleged criticism of the employee’s accent while making a stereotypical head “bobble” gesture, along with evidence suggesting irregularities in the application, hiring, and interview processes (Kandan v. Lucas and EEOC, No. 24-2089 (E.D. La. Sept. 20, 2025)).

The employee worked in the EEOC’s New Orleans field office (NOFO) for over 25 years. She served as an investigator from 1999 to 2004, an enforcement supervisor from 2004 to 2014, and an enforcement manager from 2014 to the present. She also served as acting field director from August 2022 to February 2023, at which time she applied for the permanent position.

Decisionmaker’s alleged bias. The director for the Houston district office (the HFO director) was the hiring official for the NOFO director position. He was also the employee’s second line supervisor relative to her enforcement manager position and first-line supervisor when she was acting field director.

According to one Houston EEOC staff member, he complained about her use of leave to visit family in India and criticized her accent while making a head “bobble” gesture “known to be a stereotypical and racially charged reference to individuals of Indian descent.”

Black male candidate selected. The HFO director and the individual he ultimately hired for the NOFO director position were both Black males born in the U.S. with military backgrounds. The Black male candidate joined the EEOC in 2021 after a 30-year career with the U.S. Army. He worked for the EEOC for 19 months as an enforcement supervisor, then 3 months as a supervisory equal opportunity investigator.

The employee supervised the Black male candidate for 19 months, and when she instructed him during the COVID-19 pandemic to report to the New Orleans office in-person, he ignored her directive and instead reported to the Houston office. There, he spent significant time with the HFO director. While the director claimed the reason the employee was not given the promotion was “largely” her significantly lower scores from an interview panel, he also considered his own familiarity with the candidates’ abilities.

Not clearly more qualified. It was undisputed by the EEOC that the employee established a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, but it argued that she could not establish pretext. Though the court ultimately found that triable issues existed in this regard, she failed to show she was clearly more qualified than the selected candidate such that his selection alone demonstrated pretext. Her “extensive experience at the agency and [the selected candidate’s] equally extensive military background defy an apples-to-apples comparison,” explained the court. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has held that “better education, work experience, and longer tenure with the company do not establish that [an applicant] is clearly better qualified.” Finally, at least some of the panel interviewers “exercised impartial judgment and provided detailed and plausible reasons” for ranking the Black male candidate higher than her.

Other evidence suggests pretext. However, other evidence suggested that her non-promotion was discriminatory, including the HFO director’s alleged comments about her accent, stereotyped head “bobble,” and criticisms of her use of leave to visit India. In addition, she presented evidence concerning the application and hiring process from which a jury could infer discrimination.

Irregularities. The hiring process for the field director position took place over several steps. First, HR screened applicants to determine whether they met minimum qualification requirements. Qualified candidates were then subject to a panel interview that resulted in independent scores. Finally, a decision was made by the HFO director subject to approval by his superior.

Director’s involvement. The EEOC posted the NOFO director position in August, October, and November. The employee was found ineligible in August due to checking an incorrect box, and the Black male was also not qualified based on a screening of his resume. When the employee applied again in October, HR advised her that her candidacy would not be considered. Later, she learned that the HFO director had changed the position posting to a “DEU” designation such that qualified veterans would receive preferential treatment. She claimed this change was intended to ensure the Black male’s selection, and emails suggested that a manager told the HFO director that she “wasn’t going to make it” once the DEU designation was in place.

Preselected? As of October 20, the HR rep responsible for screening applicants had determined that the Black male was not qualified. A few days later, the HFO director discussed with him the extent to which his military experience should count as satisfying HR’s screening requirements. On October 26, the HR rep sought the input of an HR rep in Charlotte, NC, and that rep expressed some surprise that he was being considered for the director position. Their communication could be read to suggest he was preselected, though the HR rep claimed his comments were a joke.

The HR rep spoke to the candidate directly about “adjustments” to make to his resume to better reflect his qualifications, and on November 8, he submitted a new resume. The HR rep forwarded it that same day to the HFO director with a note that he was now qualified.

Fair interview process? The EEOC posted the position a third time in November, and referred both the employee and the Black male for virtual panel interviews. However, triable issues existed as to the neutrality and fairness of that process. The four-member interview panel also included a manager who was a longtime military acquaintance of the HFO director with whom he had previously expressed reservations about the employee’s lack of readiness for the permanent field director position.

At the time, the employee was on leave in India caring for her ill elderly mother, and while she requested that the interview proceed at 9:00 a.m. CST, which would be 8:30 p.m. in India, it was scheduled 11:00 p.m. in India. As such, she spoke quietly so as not to wake her sleeping mother. Three of the panelists rated both the Black male and another candidate higher than her, and the fourth one scored her and the Black male equally. Though the EEOC’s practice was to conduct a second interview, that did not occur here.

“Groomed and promoted.” While the HFO director claimed he relied heavily on the panel scores to justify his promotion decision, the employee produced evidence that he previously selected a candidate who placed third in panel scoring. Moreover, he prepared an internal self-assessment that stated he “groomed and promoted” the Black male to the director position, calling into question the extent to which the panel scores motivated his decision.

The case is No. 24-2089.

Judge: Dossier, E.

Attorneys: Tulio D. Chirinos (Chirinos Law Firm) for Uma R. Kandan. Jason M. Bigelow, U. S. Attorney's Office, for the EEOC and Charlotte Burrows.

Cases: Discrimination NationalOrigin RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination LouisianaNews GCNNews