Shell Oil Didn’t Discriminate in Hiring Decision, Says 5th Circuit – HR Dive

Diving brief:

• Shell Oil Co. did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it decided not to hire a non-white applicant of Egyptian and Sudanese descent in favor of a white British candidate, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals was held on November 28 (Shater v Shell Oil Co.no. 22-20289 (5th Cir. 28 Nov. 2022)).
• The plaintiff was one of three finalists considered for a top executive position, according to court documents. The finalists were interviewed on the same questions and considered according to the same three criteria. While the applicant corresponded better to the third factor considered, the selected candidate had experience more in line with the first two. The panel decided the latter candidate was the best fit, according to court documents.
• Ultimately, plaintiff could not demonstrate that his lack of selection was a pretext, the 5th Circuit found. While he argued that the white candidate had been shortlisted, noting that the panel said it had not made up its mind when it did, one panelist said he could not announce the decision at the time for non-discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff’s argument that he was “clearly more qualified” than the selected candidate was also insufficient, the tribunal found – while he was stronger on one element of the criteria, the selected candidate was stronger on the other elements , which makes them at least equally qualified. .

Overview of the dive:

Hiring often results in discrimination lawsuits, and Shell’s case shows how standard hiring processes can help save HR from baseless claims.

Shell shortlisted three candidates and assembled a three-person panel for interviews, “in accordance with its normal process,” the 5th Circuit noted in its decision. The selection board asked each candidate the same questions based on three agreed criteria. Two of the three panelists testified that the process was “fair and objective”. According to court documents, it appears that only the three important criteria for the position were considered.

On the other hand, there are several ways for employers to engage in lawsuits when hiring. Pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly clashed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when it declared a goal of recruit “early career” candidates. The company imposed higher levels of screening and approval before hiring older candidates and thus discriminated against them, the EEOC said.

Discrimination based on identity appears to be common in hiring. Recently, a ResumeBuilder survey revealed that 1 out of 4 recruiters say they are less likely to hire Jewish candidates. When communicated and used in hiring decisions, such discrimination puts businesses in difficulty. A Buffalo recruitment company recently paid $550,000 to settle EEOC allegations that it rejected black and female job applicants or placed them in low-paying jobs because of their race or gender.

Hiring managers should keep in mind that efforts to balance and address hiring discrimination can sometimes perpetuate the problem. For instance, 1 in 6 respondents to a ResumeBuilder survey said they were told to “deprioritize white males” in service of DEI goals. While explicitly casting a wide net for candidates is encouragedbasing decisions on race or other identity criteria – however well-meaning – can be illegal.

Standardizing the interview process and using the same criteria for all three applicants may have helped Shell defeat the discrimination claim, and employers would do well to adopt similar standardized processes for their own hiring. Documentation is another good practice that can help contradict false claims.