One of the hardest things for employers is being accused of wrongdoing and, rather than reacting defensively, flipping it to their advantage. For an example of how to do so, let’s look to the University of Houston (UH) and how it handled a discrimination complaint from a disappointed professorship applicant.
Professors Squabbling
Kate Kingsbury applied for a professorship at UH in its Department of Comparative Cultural Studies. As with other candidates, she was interviewed by a committee of faculty members. Enter Professor Elizabeth Farfán-Santos, one of the four committee members. While inquiring about Kingsbury’s study of the Mexican religious movement Santa Muerte, Farfán-Santos asked, “What makes you think, as a white person, that you could ever understand such a powerful tradition?”
Kingsbury and another committee member then emailed Department Chair Nicholas De Genova, complaining about what they considered an offensive question. UH’s Office of Equal Opportunity Services (EOS) began an investigation.
An upset Farfán-Santos then filed her own complaint with EOS because she was offended by the complaint made about her. She also hopped on Twitter complaining that UH wasn’t supporting her. Not to be outdone, Kingsbury emailed De Genova again, complaining, for the first time, that she was being discriminated against because she wasn’t of Mexican origin.
What To Do?
UH decided to hire another candidate but, in doing so, prohibited Farfán-Santos from submitting an assessment of Kingsbury. Kingsbury filed a lawsuit, claiming national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The trial court dismissed the case, and the Houston Court of Appeals agreed.
Here’s the appeals court:
[The] record reflects that even though [UH considered] Farfán-Santos’s evaluations of the other candidates, UH did not consider her evaluation of Kingsbury. . . . The other [committee members] all issued a condemnation of Farfán-Santos’s behavior. Kingsbury [thus] does not explain how Farfán-Santos’s alleged bias could have produced the unanimous decision not to hire her.
In short, there was no evidence Farfán-Santos was a decision-maker, nor was there any evidence she influenced the other committee members’ decision on whom to hire. The University of Houston v. Kingsbury (Tex. App. (14th) 2023).
Class Dismissed
UH’s audit of the decision-making process resulted in Farfán-Santos’s isolation from the decision-making, thereby ensuring any alleged bias played no role in who was hired. UH could have dug in its heels, argued that the comment was a fair question, and plowed ahead, but it didn’t.
Good for it! Never be driven by the accusation. Instead, be driven by this: What is our goal, and how do we get there?
Michael P. Maslanka is a professor at the UNT-Dallas College of Law. You can reach him at michael.maslanka@unt-dallas.edu.