Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Okla.: Employee failed to show city’s selection of younger, white candidate was pretextual, (Jun 3, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The city incorporated objective criteria into the hiring decision, and it was not required to wholly remove subjective considerations from the hiring process.

The City of Tulsa was entitled to summary judgment against the race and age discrimination claims of a municipal employee who alleged he was passed over for promotions in favor of younger, white employees, ruled a federal district court in Oklahoma. The employee failed to meet his burden to show that the city’s stated reason for selecting a white candidate for the position of plant superintendent was pretextual. While the employee was strong in the areas of education and technical skills, interviewers consistently found him lacking in communications skills and managerial experience. Moreover, the court determined that many of the employee’s allegations of retaliation concerned perceived personal slights that did not affect any condition of his employment (Jiang v. City of Tulsa, No. 23-CV-255-CVE-CDL (N.D. Okla. June 2, 2025)).

The employee worked as a senior engineer in the water and sewer department of the city. He provides technical support for the operation of water treatment plants. His duties have remained similar throughout his employment with the city.

Job opening. In June 2021, the employee applied for a job opening for the water treatment plant superintendent. The position would not have provided him a pay raise, but he believed the position would have provided him valuable managerial experience that would help open up other career prospects. A younger white candidate, who did not meet the educational requirement, but had substantial work and managerial experience was awarded the position.

The employee filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The charge alleged that the city discriminated against him based on his race, national origin, and age, and he also claimed that the city retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity.

Discrimination claims. On June 2, 2023, the employee filed this case in state court alleging race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, as well as state law claims under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. He alleged age discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADEA, and he also alleged a claim under the Equal Pay Act. The city removed the case to federal court, then filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s EPA claim, which was granted.

Presently before the court, the city sought summary judgment on the employee’s employment discrimination claims under federal and state law. The city argued that it had provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for its selection of another candidate for the plant superintendent position, and the employee cannot establish that this decision was pretextual based only on his allegedly superior qualifications for the position.

The city did not contest that the employee can establish a prima facie case of race or age discrimination. As such, the court proceeded directly to the city’s legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for failing to promote him. The city acknowledged that the employee was qualified for the position of plant superintendent, but that the hiring supervisor preferred to select a candidate with a range of technical skills and leadership abilities. The selected candidate did not have as much technical knowledge as the employee but was strong in both technical knowledge and management skills. This explanation satisfied the city’s requirement to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the decision.

For his part, the employee argued that the city violated its own policies to consider both white candidates for the position during the initial hiring process, and he contended that he should have been considered the only qualified applicant for the position. The employee relied on the city’s decision to change the requirements for the job after he successfully challenged the first hiring decision, and he claimed the city lowered the job requirement to favor white and younger applicants. Further, he claimed that the certification and hiring decisions were wholly subjective, and the lack of objective criteria for certifying and hiring allowed the city to favor white applicants.

Hiring criteria. However, the court found that the employee’s assertion that the hiring criteria for the plant superintendent position were “wholly subjective” was not supported by any evidence. During the second hiring process, each interviewer completed a form with 14 questions concerning various qualifications for the position, goals if the candidate were selected, and past experience that would be relevant to the job. The subjective components of the interview process in this case were balanced with an effort to rank the applicants based on a set of objective criteria, and the employee has not shown that the hiring process was so subjective that it gave rise to the appearance that the city’s stated reason for selecting another candidate for the plant superintendent position was pretextual.

Moreover, the mere fact that the city changed the job description and expanded the potential pool of applicants did not inherently suggest that the city took this action to discriminate against the employee because of his race or age. The employee has not identified any comments by coworkers or other incidents suggesting that he was subjected to mistreatment because of his race or age.

Accordingly, the court found that the city had a good faith belief that the selected candidate was better qualified for the position of water treatment plant superintendent than the employee. Thus, the employee has not met his burden to show that the city’s stated reason for selecting that candidate was pretextual.

Retaliation claim. As to the employee’s retaliation claims, the city challenged his claims on the ground that he cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation for protected activity concerning race or age discrimination, because he did not suffer an adverse employment action in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. The employee clearly made a complaint of racial discrimination concerning the hiring decision for the plant superintendent position prior to filing his EEOC charge, and he submitted his grievance to the city. Thus, he clearly engaged in protected opposition to allegedly discriminatory behavior, and he could satisfy the first element of a prima facie case of retaliation.

However, the court determined that many of the employee’s alleged acts of retaliation were more properly classified as perceived personal slights rather than discrete acts that had any concrete effect on his employment, and that there was no evidence that his job assignment, pay, schedule, or any condition of his employment has been affected. Thus, the court agreed with the city that the employee had not shown he suffered an adverse employment action that would support a retaliation claim.

Accordingly, the city was granted its motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 23-CV-255-CVE-CDL.

Judge: Eagan, C.

Attorneys: Daniel E. Smolen (Smolen, Smolen & Roytman) for Hua Jiang. Hayes Thomas Martin, Office of the City of Tulsa Attorney, for City of Tulsa.

Companies: City of Tulsa

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Retaliation StateLawClaims OklahomaNews