Hua Jiang v. City of Tulsa

Tulsa, Oklahoma, employment law lawyer represented the Defendant who sued on a 42 U.S.C. 2000 job discrimination theory.

When he applied to be the superintendent of Tulsa’s A.B. Jewell water-
treatment plant, Hua Jiang was an accomplished engineer. But the city wanted
someone with leadership experience. And Jiang, a middle-aged man from
China, didn’t have any. So the city hired a younger, white candidate who did.
In the process, the city violated its written hiring policies. Those policies
required the city to hire someone with a college degree in biology, engineering,
environmental sciences, or a related field. Yet the hired candidate didn’t have a
degree at all. Jiang reported the city’s error to its civil-service commission,

which confirmed that the city had violated its policies.

In response, the city removed the job posting’s degree requirement to
reflect the city’s customary practice of substituting experience for education.
The city then redid its hiring. The same three people applied, and, again, the
city hired the candidate with more leadership experience.

Jiang sued the city for discrimination. He alleged that the reason the city
didn’t choose him for superintendent was his age and race. Though the city had
said that it wanted a candidate with more leadership experience, Jiang argued
that this justification was pretext for the city’s discriminatory animus. He also
argued that the city removed the degree requirement to retaliate for his
reporting discrimination.

At summary judgment, Jiang pointed to his superior qualifications, the
city’s subjective hiring process, and the procedural shortcuts the city took to
hire its preferred candidate. But Jiang didn’t point to facts upon which a jury
could find that the city was untruthful about valuing a candidate with leadership experience. So the district court granted summary judgment to the city.

Summary judgment in favor of the Defendant affirmed.