I'll make it as brief as I can, but I wanted to see if anyone on the forum who is a lawyer (employment or not) could tell me if this was a cause/battle I should fire for or just move on.

I've been at the same company for 7 years. I am at a larger company, but at a smaller company I have reported to the CEO as a director. I've got significant experience in my field, both significant experience outside this company in my direct field as well as consultative experience outside (big 6/5 consulting). It's non/pseudo technical more process side. I also have an advanced degree (MBA).

Along with a few other co-workers, there are 2 specific women that are peers to me, both have been with THIS company much longer, but have "moved around alot" and got to this position by moving "up" in the company. Neither has any background in technology, project management or process design. Neither has an advanced degree. One has been a "line level" manager, but neither has been a director-level report.

I had a one-on-one with my current supervisor today.

He informs me that my position is fine, but that the other 2 women "don't have enough work to do" and they've expressed interest in becoming a "project manager", a title/rank that is clearly above the current title we all share based on other "project managers" in the company.

I've done "project management" myself, and can do it, but I like/liked what I do, so I never "angled" for a "project manager" position.

This is a NEW job title for this role, it was NEVER previously discussed.

While I expressed shock and dismay at his lack of consideration of me, it was very clear by his tone that I'm not being considered for this "new" position, only the 2 women are.

Overall, I get along with my boss good, but about 3 years ago, I decided to pursue a Business Analyst-type role (more technical role) in the company. Not only was I passed over (wasn't even granted a real interview) but a woman was given that role as well (who subsequently quit/left the company).

The company's CEO is a woman, so there is a strong culture for "diversity". And she "moved up in the ranks".

Now, to the heart of it.

I'm clearly qualified for a PM job, I've done it before, I've got more education and more experience.

If the job description is posted, and I apply, I'm 99.9% sure I won't even be considered, given what was said today, but on paper, I will be a clearly superior candidate.

Should I fight this if it goes down, or just cut and run?

I really like the company overall, and do really well in my current role (mini-PMing several initiatives), and could do well as a PM. But... I'm pretty sure that I will be "passed over" for whatever reason. My boss seems to just "like" one of these women more than me, regardless of my performance.

To add insult to injury here, I wasn't all that excited about my current role, but I could do it and actually did really well (the business side just sings my praises) but BOTH of these women could not form the necessary political relationships with the key players, so they asked my supervisor and were granted to "change their roles" and become generalists to avoid resolving political issues (I guess women find it hard to work with other women).

So, is it worth a fight?

Or not...

James in Denver

Gender trumps experience and capability. Besides, you will be doing their work for them anyway.

Back inn the early 70's I was directly jumped over for a job I had worked for and earned in order to let an executive's mistress have a spot.

EEOC totally railroaded me and I was SOL.

This is San Francisco after all, so virtue signalling SJW's get the nod over any normal worker.

Maybe things have changed, but you have to ask yourself if the fix is in before you start.

It was in my case.

I was in a similar situation in my last job, an opportunity came up that required a business banking background, which I had many years of, both corporate and international. The company was owned by a woman (elderly), run through a holding company of sorts, and managed by women. Although I was the only person in the company who was truly qualified, I wasn't even considered, and the job went to a girl, about 25 years old, with absolutely no banking experience. I doubt she balanced her own checking account.

The company still exists, but I believe that all functions beyond the holding company were moved overseas, leaving some 400 people out of work.

I'm not a lawyer, of course, so I won't offer any advice regarding legal action, but from a practical point of view, I'll suggest you GTFO as soon as you can. You have no future in such a company.

A consultation with a labor attorney may be called for. That said, If you were to proceed and prevail, my guess is they will go out of their way to make your job miserable.
I once worked for an organization of about 300 and it was 95% women throughout. The drama, gossip, buddy-buddy promotions without qualifications and petty vindictiveness was off the charts. This crew never forgot a slight, no matter how small. I stayed on because the money was good but its an experience I don't want to have again. Women run and staffed companies are nightmares to work for.

Emailed

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
...Women run and staffed companies are nightmares to work for.

Even women I know say this is true!

You will not prevail in these circumstances. Your recourse of retaking a labor law attorney will be more expensive than you can imagine. Maintain a positive team player attitude and start looking right away for another opportunity. Under no circumstances talk to anyone about this and be careful about posting on this site or anywhere about else. Your situation has nothing to do about fairness or right and wrong. Have been in your situation and left the company as soon as possible. Good luck to you sir.

So I understand, they have significant seniority and asked for the position to be created, and you didn't? It could be as simple as that.

While you have a great case, you're basically up against a wall.
If I were not prepared to leave the company, I'd be sure to not let them dump any of their duties on me, and sit back and watch as their non qualification catches up with them.

I would leave, in my mind I wouldn't want to work for such a company anyway. Even if you prevailed in a lawsuit I doubt it would be worth the effort.

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
So I understand, they have significant seniority and asked for the position to be created, and you didn't? It could be as simple as that.

It could be this, I'd still apply for it.

Life isn't fair.
Be reliable and do a superior job.
Be professional and no-drama.
Apply for promotion opportunities you believe you're qualified for.
Eventually something will break your way.

Hiring a lawyer in this situation would not be to your advantage, IMO. I can see no good coming from it.

Been through it a few times myself.

Time to look further or keep your head down and mouth shut. Claiming discrimination will likely make you a target and a very miserable existence. If you like your job keep doing it well and watch them fail. DO NOT HELP THEM.
If you are unhappy or feel slighted in any way, GTFO NOW. No job is worth being miserable.

Up until recently the workplace was unfair for women. Today many big companies very focused on getting to the "right" gender balance. At my company we went from like 10% female execs 5 years ago to 40% today. Pretty strong headwind if your are a white male. That's life, roll with it and find an employer who judges only on merit.

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:
While you have a great case...

No. He doesn't.

See rusbro's comment. There's no evidence of discrimination of any sort here other than his opinion that the boss likes diversity because she is female. That discussion could open up several cans of worms, but even if it's absolutely true, it doesn't mean that there's any sort of discrimination going on.

The defense is that our OP lacks ambition and didn't ask for the job. Those who did had it tailor made for them. Absolutely nothing illegal about that.

There's also no legal requirement that open positions be posted for competitive hiring (in private, non-union environments, anyway) or that hiring be made on a merit basis.

I see no discrimination in the OPs post. Perhaps it fails to convey a long pattern of female employees being favored over men, but it seems a stretch to me.

Sounds like you don't want to work there anyway and should leave or are happy with your current position and shouldn't worry about it.

Not making a judgment here, just calling it like I see it.

-Rob

As usual, BurtonRW nailed it. There is definitely no great case here and there may be no case at all.

As a threshhold matter, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination (at least under federal law). Being male is a protected class, just like being female. Thie issue is whether the OP was subjected to an adverse employment action that his gender was a motivating factor. If it was, then a discrimination claim is possible. The burden is identical to prove a gender case if the employee is male or female.

There are many reasons why there be no claim at all. First, is this position a promotion? Does it include a raise or more prestige beyond "I would like to do that job?" If not, then there was no adverse employment action and no claim. There has to be some tangible harm like loss of money, benefits, supervisory experience that will make you more promotable in the future, etc. The mere denial of something you want without any tangible harm is not discrmination under federal law - even if it is unfair.

Second, there is no claim if there is no application for the job unless the OP can prove the application was futile. This is incredibly difficult to prove and will only work if there is a significant pattern of discrimination against males.

Third, an employer need only offer a legitimate business reason for the decision, like seniority, to justify its actions. I suspect the company can offer more as there are usually several reasons why management legitimately perceives one candidate is better for the position. These can be completlely subjective (like person A has a better attitude or interpersonal skills than person B) as long as they are unrelated to gender. (In some cases, gender can be a legit reason if it is a bonafide occupational qualification like in the famous Hooters case, but not likely here)

Finally, the OP would have to prove it is more likely than not the proffered reasons for the decision are a pretext for gender bias. At least in the Eleventh Circuit, this has been articulated as proving a cover-up for the real reason which is gender bias. This is a difficult standard, even for women to prove. Cases are often dismissed via motion at the summary judgment stage because men and women alike are unable to prove the employer's reasons are pretextual. Despite the vurrent state of people getting triggered by the most ridiculous things, it is actuallyery challenging to prove one of these cases. The last two gender cases I tried had much more evidence than the OP presented and resulted in defense verdicts.

Failure to promote claims are nearly impossible to make when an employee merely disagrees with the qualifications of the person selected and his or her own or disagree with the reasons cited by the employer. Because the Courts do not exist to second guess personnel decisions, but tomremedy intentional discrimination, the difference in qualifications has to be so great that no reasonable employer could believe the person selected was more qualified. Federal law is also clear that an employee's subjective disagreement with the decision or with the comparative qualifications is not even enough to get to a jury.

This promotion analysis - assuming it even was one - is even further complicated if there is a collective bargaining agreement that has articles addressing promotions.

It always sucks to be treated unfairly and that might be what is happening with the OP, but life is not fair and unfairness does not mean there is a legal claim. As always, state laws may differ and I am not a Colorado lawyer, so a consult with a lawyer licemsed in the state is always recommended. This isn't legal advice but is an accurate - but brief snapshot - of federal Title VII law, at least as it exists in my Circuit.

quote:

Originally posted by keltoi:
You will not prevail in these circumstances. Your recourse of retaking a labor law attorney will be more expensive than you can imagine. Maintain a positive team player attitude and start looking right away for another opportunity. Under no circumstances talk to anyone about this and be careful about posting on this site or anywhere about else. Your situation has nothing to do about fairness or right and wrong. Have been in your situation and left the company as soon as possible. Good luck to you sir.

^^^ This is your best course of action IMHO

Thanks for your comments, JDSigManiac.