A federal judge from the Eastern District of New York has granted summary judgment to the United States Tennis Association and the National Tennis Center’s Managing Director in a case in which they were sued for race and age discrimination by an African-American teaching professional after he was passed over for a promotion.
In so ruling, the court found that plaintiff Marvin Dent failed to prove that Daniel Zausner’s decision not to hire Dent was “motivated, even in part, by race,” or that there was any evidence that age was a factor in the firing decision.
The impetus for the litigation was the defendant’s decision to hire a Caucasian male, Whitney Kraft, as its Director of Tennis, who was 17 years younger than the plaintiff.
Approximately 90 individuals applied for the position. Zausner reviewed the applicants. Then, without disclosing the names of those individuals that he believed were qualified, he asked Kurt Kamperman, the USTA’s Chief Executive for Community Tennis, to independently review resumes. Kamperman reviewed over 50 resumes and provided Zausner with the “half dozen or so individuals that he felt had the most suitable experience and expertise for the position, based on their resume.” Zausner’s and Kamperman’s top candidates for the position were identical, according to the court.
Dent, when he had heard about the opening, sent an email to Zausner expressing his interest in the position. But neither Zausner nor Kamperman believed Dent had the requisite qualifications and experience to be the NTC’s next Director of Tennis.
Even so, Zausner extended Dent a courtesy interview because he was a senior teaching professional at the NTC and Zausner was open to being “pleasantly surprised.” The interview “did not change Zausner’s belief that Dent ‘possessed very few of the qualifications for the position,’” wrote the court.
Nevertheless, Dent sued, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law § 290, and the New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code § 8-101. The defendants moved for summary judgment.
Addressing the first court, the court wrote that “Dent’s opposition papers are devoid of any argument that his qualifications were superior to Kraft’s and he admits that, unlike Kraft, he has never been responsible for overseeing the daily programming, maintenance and upkeep of 44 courts at nine different facilities, managing a million dollar budget, or supervising a staff of 22 individuals.
“… Perhaps realizing as much, Dent argues that summary judgment should be denied because a reasonable person could find pretext from the fact that the defendants have changed the qualifications of the position for the purposes of this litigation. That is, Dent argues, although the Director of Tennis position has always been primarily, if not entirely, an ‘overseer of other tennis professionals,’ the defendants, in an effort to cover up their race and age discriminatory animus, have changed the position’s qualifications so that it appears to the court that the position has more of an administrative and managerial focus than it actually does. As evidence of this purported cover up, Dent relies heavily on what he characterizes as the defendants’ initial job description for the position, which he contends makes clear that ‘apart from a toss away line of having a combination of playing and management experience that the position was more of a leader of the other tennis professionals.’”
The court disagreed with that contention, finding “no support in the record” that the defendants “have changed the qualifications in an effort to cover up their discrimination.”
Dent’s other argument was that the rationale of not hiring him, because of lack of qualifications, was pretext. Specifically, he claimed that Zausner gave him “only a brief and perfunctory interview and failed to ask (him) for information regarding his experiences and qualifications.” Wrote the court: “Dent is simply wrong when he contends that Zausner had ‘no knowledge’ of Dent’s prior work experience before rejecting him.”
Turning to the count centered on the ADEA, the court wrote that “Dent has not come forward with any evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that his age was a reason, let alone the reason, why he was not promoted. He does not contend that his age was ever discussed by Zausner or any other executive during the hiring process. Nor, for that matter, does he contend that his age has ever been an issue at the NTC. The only evidence in support of Dent’s argument is the fact that Kraft is younger than he, it is well-settled that the mere fact that an individual younger than plaintiff was ultimately hired is insufficient to prove intentional discrimination.”
Similarly, the court, unpursuaded by the plaintiff’s other arguments, granted summary judgment.
Marvin Dent v. United States Tennis Association, INC. et al.; E.D.N.Y.; 08 CV 1533 (RJD) (VVP), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8341; 1/27/11
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiff) Ariel Yigal Graff, Basil Constantine Sitaras, Kenneth P. Thompson, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Thompson Wigdor & Gilly LLP, New York, NY. (for defendants) Kenneth G. Standard, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Lauren A. Malanga, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, NY.
