Grounds for an age-discrimination suit?

[zyxwvut]

I am a white male, 53. I have an M.S. in biology and over 20 years' experience as a biologist at the professional level (all of it, including extensive supervisory/coordination experience, in a lab environment at a university, in Illinois, USA). I recently applied and interviewed (11 July, 2008) for a university staff position (M.S.-level hire), Laboratory Coordinator in biology, at an Illinois university other than the one where I have worked to date. At the interview, I was required to present my undergrad and grad transcripts, and I also was required to fill out an I-9 form (does that sound strange to anyone? From everything that I have been able to learn about the I-9, it is a form that is filled out by newly-hired employees, not by interviewees). A required field on the I-9 form was date of birth. I had not previously provided either my age or my date of birth, in any medium, throughout the entire process. The interview was great. It was basically a rerun of a very positive meeting that I had with the department Chair back on 24 April, 2008, in which he and I talked about my qualifications for the job (plus several additional, valuable skills that I wished to bring to the department), at which time he expressed a high level of enthusiasm that I was interested in the position. In the 11 July interview, the only less-than-positive moment came late in the going, when the department Chair, as he was looking at my undergrad transcripts for the first time, commented, "These dates go back a *long* way." His tone was one of surprise and concern. It made me uncomfortable, because I thought at the time, "Oh, no: he didn't realize how old I am (I do look 'young for my age'), he is now starting to wonder about it, this appears to be a problem to him, and now, all he has to do to learn my exact age is look at that I-9 form that I was required to fill out." A few days later, I received an e-mail from him, in which he told me that the job had been offered to another person, who had accepted it. The only explanation given was that, although I was a strong candidate, the other person was deemed to be "a better fit" (not "an even stronger candidate") for the position. I have since learned that the person hired is a white woman in her late 20s who has no discernible relevant experience, having worked in sales for industry since graduating a few years ago (so, she has no university, laboratory, or biology work experience). It can not be claimed that she was hired in the interest of promoting gender diversity, because in the staff ranks of that department, the present gender ratio is 70% female: 30% male. Nor can salary have been an issue, because in both the April meeting with the Chair and in the July interview, I was shown the salary and indicated that it was fine, and that I had no intention of negotiating it higher because of my extensive experience. "He was overqualified, he would have been bored in the position," etc. won't fly, because every syllable of information that would have gone into that decision had been in the hands of the Chair for more than two months, at the time in early July when he was still sufficiently "up" about my candidacy to decide that I made the interview round (it takes him more than two months to realize that someone is overqualified?). So, what could have caused this sudden and extreme turnaround, late in the process? Needless to say, the department Chair is making no attempt to claim that the other person was hired because of her being better qualified than I am. Therefore, since he is saying that "fit" was the determining factor, something in that realm must have utterly torpedoed me, for it to override the enormous disparity in relevant experience and skills, in my favor, between me and the person who was hired. WHAT WAS IT? I reason that age discrimination must be the answer, because the simple fact is that the one and only thing that changed about what he (and the other two people on the hiring committee) knew about me, between Point A (well-justified enthusiasm on their part, about my coming to work there) and Point B ("anyone but him," such that an absolute nobody off the street is suddenly preferable), is that, during my interview, the department Chair became curious and concerned about my age, and then he learned that I am 53 (and all of this happened solely on basis of his examination of materials that I was required to hand to him at the interview), whereupon he promptly used that information illegally to disqualify me as a viable candidate for the position, regardless of my being by far the best-qualified person for it. I also have learned that in the 27 April, 2007 edition of the university newspaper, the department Chair is quoted as saying that younger people in the department (grad students), being closer in age to the undergrads themselves, might have more of a connection with them (than would older, staff-level employees; this was the comparison that was being made by him); so, there appears to be a history, here. When I received word that I did not get the job, I e-mailed a sketch of what happened, and why it concerns me, to the director of the university's Office of Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, and Diversity, who sent me a message saying that my memorandum had been passed on to the department Chair for review. I recently (2 September, 2008) received a paper-mail letter from him, in which he stated that all university hiring practices were followed, and that three qualified candidates were interviewed, and he reiterated that the person was hired who was deemed the "best fit" for the position. I e-mailed the director of the CRAAD Office and stated that I am unsatisfied with this response, in that it says nothing relevant to my concerns, and I requested that I be informed of what is the next step in the internal investigation process, and that my complaint be taken to that level. I have heard nothing back, so far. I believe that the university administration has circled the wagons and now is ensconced in a strategy of stonewalling and delay. Therefore, I am at the point of filing a formal complaint with the EEOC and engaging the services of a counselor. But I thought I would weigh in with it here, first, and ask: do the facts in the preceding account appear to be sufficient grounds for filing an age-discrimination suit? Many thanks for any insight that anyone is able and willing to provide on this.

 

[kittykat02]

Sorry, but your post is too long to read. You may find your answers here.

http://www.eeoc.gov/