Earlier this year, the Court of Specials Appeals found in favor of the University of Baltimore School of Law (UB) in an age discrimination suit brought by Donald Dobkin. Dobkin v. Univ. of Balt. Sch. of Law, 210 Md. App. 580 (2013).
In 2009, Dobkin applied to become a professor at the University. Instead of hiring the then 56-year-old Dobkin (or hundreds of other applicants), UB hired a 32-year-old female for the position. Dobkin then sued the University, claiming discrimination on the basis of age under state law. The circuit court granted UB’s motion for summary judgment and Dobkin appealed.
UB received 833 applications in response to its ad and interviewed 56 of the applicants. Fourteen candidates were given “second-round” interviews. The successful applicant (for the immigration professor position Dobkin was seeking), although younger, had more academic and clinical experience than Dobkin, who himself possessed considerable practical experience. UB also hired a 38-year-old and 40-year-old as a result of this process.
In affirming the circuit court decision, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that there was no direct evidence of discrimination and, therefore, considered the circumstantial evidence offered by Dobkin. Plaintiff satisfied his initial burden under the four-part burden-shifting test set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Dobkin demonstrated that: 1) he was a member of a protected class; 2) who was qualified for the position; 3) not hired; and 4) after the applicant was rejected, the position remained open while the employer sought out applicants with similar qualifications..
He could not, however, overcome UB’s “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason . . . a reason that does not deny equal protection.” Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, if the employer successfully puts forth a non-discriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to establish that the employer’s reason is mere pretext.
UB’s legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for its decision: Dobkin had no clinical teaching experience, had less favorable academic credentials, and did not clerk for a judge. While Dobkin had significant experience as an immigration attorney, his credentials were not of the sort UB was seeking.
The Court concluded that it could not “demand or require” the school to give preference to practical experience over academic training, because the University “has a right to choose what qualifications address their needs.” Dobkin could not establish that UB’s reasons were pretextual or that the University had a practice of discriminating against older applicants. As a result, Dobkin’s claim failed.