| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Villaflores v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (02/08/2008) sp-6228
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878,
e-mail corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
| CLARITO VILLAFLORES, | ) |
| ) Supreme Court No. S- 12499 | |
| Appellant, | ) |
| ) Superior Court No. 3AN-05-12400 CI | |
| v. | ) |
| ) O P I N I O N | |
| ALASKA STATE COMMISSION | ) |
| FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, | ) No. 6228 - February 8, 2008 |
| ) | |
| Appellee. | ) |
| ) | |
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, Third Judicial District,
Anchorage, Philip R. Volland, Judge.
Appearances: Clarito Villaflores, pro se,
Anchorage. William E. Milks, Assistant
Attorney General, and Talis J. Colberg,
Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, and Carpeneti, Justices. [Bryner,
Justice, not participating.]
EASTAUGH, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
After Clarito Villaflores applied for a job with
ConocoPhillips and was not hired, he filed a complaint with the
Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, alleging discrimination
based on age and race. The commission, through staff, determined
that Villafloress complaint was not supported by substantial
evidence because Villaflores was not qualified for the job, and
because ConocoPhillips had not known Villafloress race and hired
an applicant of the same age class as Villaflores. In seeking
reconsideration, Villaflores disputed the commissions rulings
regarding his race and age discrimination claims. The commission
did not reopen his case, and the superior court denied his
appeal. Because Villafloress application failed to show he was
qualified for the job he failed to make out a prima facie case of
discrimination. We therefore affirm.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Clarito Villaflores applied for a job with
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. as a North Slope human resources
representative. The job description listed preferred
qualifications, including five to ten years of human resources
experience, labor relations experience, and a bachelors or
masters degree in human resources or a related field. The job
application form did not ask applicants to report their age, but
allowed applicants to voluntarily report their race.
Villafloress completed application did not state his race or age
as such, but stated among other things that he had graduated in
1979 and 1983 from Silliman University, Philippines, and that he
was proficient in Filipino. Villaflores was not interviewed, and
another applicant was hired. Villaflores then filed a complaint
with the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, alleging
discrimination based on his race (Asian) and age (forty-five).
ConocoPhillips responded that it did not interview or
hire Villaflores because he lacked the minimum qualifications for
the job; that it hired the most qualified applicant for the job;
and that the human resources director who determined that
Villaflores was not qualified did not know Villafloress age or
race. ConocoPhillips posted the human resources job twice and
received a total of 324 applications. It interviewed eight
applicants. The resume of the hired applicant revealed that he
did not have a human resources degree but had ten years of human
resources and labor relations experience in the oil industry on
the North Slope.
The commissions staff determined that Villafloress
complaint was not supported by substantial evidence because
Villafloress application did not indicate any relevant HR
generalist or labor relations experience and the evidence did not
support [Villafloress] allegation that [ConocoPhillips] did not
interview him, nor hire him . . . because of his age or race.
Villafloress application stated that he was a Labor/Management
Consultant but did not state his duties or hours in that
position. The commission closed Villafloress case.
Villaflores asked the commission to reconsider its
decision and reopen his case because ConocoPhillips did not
disprove his allegations of race and age discrimination and
implied that the commission erred in ruling that he was
unqualified. The commissions executive director declined to
reopen his case.
Villaflores appealed to the superior court, where he
argued that ConocoPhillips discriminated against him on the
basis of age and race. The superior court affirmed the
commissions decision to close Villafloress case, concluding that
Villaflores failed to make out a prima facie case of
discrimination.
Villaflores appeals pro se.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We independently review the merits of administrative
decisions.1 We review an agencys factual findings to determine
whether they are supported by substantial evidence.2 We review
questions of law not involving agency expertise under the
substitution of judgment test.3
B. The Superior Court Did Not Err when It Concluded that
Villaflores Failed To Establish a Prima Facie Case of
Discrimination.
Villaflores argues that he established a prima facie
case of discrimination; that he is the most qualified applicant
for the posted job; and that he is entitled to legal relief under
Millbrook v. IBP, Inc.,4 a case from the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. The commission responds that Villaflores failed to
state a prima facie case of discrimination; that his allegations
of discrimination were not supported by substantial evidence; and
that Millbrook does not support his position.
Alaska Statute 18.80.220(a)(1) in pertinent part
prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of a persons
race or age. To prove employment discrimination in a case such
as this, in which there is no direct evidence of discriminatory
intent, the complaining party must first establish a prima facie
case of discrimination.5 If the employer has filled the
position, the complainant must prove that (1) the complainant
belongs to a protected class; (2) the complainant applied for and
was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking
applications; (3) the complainant was rejected despite the
complainants qualifications;6 and (4) the employer hired an
individual [who was] not within the same protected class as the
complainant.7
Villaflores is Asian and was over the age of forty when
he applied for the position, so he established the first element
of his prima facie case.8 But Villaflores cannot establish the
second element, which requires a showing that he was qualified
for the job. The second element is not met because his job
application does not show that he possessed the requisite five to
ten years of human resources experience. The employment section
of Villafloress application lists his work as a Labor/Management
Consultant in the Philippines. But it does not describe the
consulting duties or the time spent on the job. The hired
applicant had ten years of human resources and labor relations
experience in the oil industry on the North Slope. Because
Villaflores did not make out a prima facie case, the commission
did not err in concluding that Villafloress complaint was not
supported by substantial evidence, and the superior court did not
err in affirming this determination.
Villaflores also argues that he is entitled to prevail
under the rule announced in Millbrook.9 He seems to argue that
Millbrook requires an employer to hire the most qualified
applicant. We disagree with any such reading of the case. The
court in Millbrook held that to prevail on a discrimination
claim, the employee must establish a prima facie case of
discrimination: [A] jury verdict for the employee [on a
discrimination claim] cannot stand if the jury is simply
disagreeing with the company as to who is best qualified.10
Millbrook extends a great deal of deference to an employers
decisions unless there is evidence of discrimination beyond the
relative qualifications of the candidates.11 In any event,
Millbrook requires a complainant to make out a prima facie
discrimination case before qualifications can even be discussed,12
and Villaflores failed to do so.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because Villaflores did not make out a prima facie case
of discrimination, we AFFIRM.
_______________________________
1 Villaflores v. Alaska State Commn for Human Rights, 170
P.3d 663, 665 (Alaska 2007) (citing Raad v. Alaska State Commn
for Human Rights, 86 P.3d 899, 903 (Alaska 2004)).
2 Id. at 665.
3 Id.
4 Millbrook v. IBP, Inc., 280 F.3d 1169, 1184-85 (7th
Cir. 2002) (holding district court erred by not granting judgment
as a matter of law to company that hired white applicant over
black applicant solely based on merit).
5 Villaflores, 170 P.3d at 665 (quoting Raad, 86 P.3d at
904).
6 Raad, 86 P.3d at 904 (citing Alaska State Commn for
Human Rights v. Yellow Cab, 611 P.2d 487, 490 (Alaska 1980)
(holding that taxi company illegally discriminated against women
by refusing to hire them)).
7 Id. at 904-05 (citing Yellow Cab, 611 P.2d at 492).
8 AS 18.80.220(a)(1) (listing race and age as unlawful
bases for refusing employment); Raad, 86 P.3d at 904 (stating the
test for a prima facie showing of discrimination is not applied
mechanistically . . . and varies with the factual circumstances
of the particular case).
Villaflores argues that ConocoPhillips knew his race,
national origin, and age because his application stated that he
graduated from a university in the Philippines in 1983. Because
there is no direct evidence of discrimination and because
Villaflores has failed to show that he was qualified for the job,
we do not need to discuss whether ConocoPhillips had knowledge of
Villafloress age or race when it failed to interview or hire him.
9 Millbrook, 280 F.3d at 1177. Villaflores argues that
we must follow Millbrook under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Millbrook is not binding precedent in this case. It involves an
interpretation of federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., not the state law, AS
18.80.220(a)(1), that we construe here.
10 Millbrook, 280 F.3d at 1178.
11 Id. (citations omitted).
12 In Millbrook, the plaintiff made out a prima facie
case, and when the employer claimed it hired the most qualified
applicant, the plaintiff argued that his qualifications were
superior to those of the person actually hired. Id. at 1174-75.
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
