Slippery Rock Civil Case REVISED

Noah Cohen
COM365
Civil Case Article


The United States Third Circuit Court October 4, 2006, overturned the decision of a lower court, clearing the way for a lawsuit against Slippery Rock University brought by a female worker on October 4 2006.
The employee, Judy Scheidemantle, argued that she was passed over for a locksmith job because she was a woman. Scheidemantle alleged that although she holds a locksmith certification, the university filled the position with a less qualified male applicant.
Scheidemantle filled suit against Slippery Rock in 2003, for gender discrimination, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Scheidemantle’s original case was thrown out by the trial court and brought to the Third Circuit on appeal.
The lower court had ruled that Scheidemantle was not qualified for the locksmith position on the grounds that Pennsylvania does not honor locksmith “certification”. Making Scheidemantle’s qualifications no better then the other male applicants.
The court examined the issue of objective qualifications as the focal point of the case.
“We must decide weather an employer that hires someone who lacks a job posting’s objective qualifications can point to the absence of those same qualifications in another applicant” wrote Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro.
In March 2003 Slippery Rock posted a job for a locksmith position that required two years of experience.
Scheidemantle, who had been employed at the university as a labor foreman and was a licensed locksmith, applied along with three male colleagues.
The university hired Calvin Rippey for the job. Rippey had no prior locksmith experience and was younger, according to the discrimination claim filed by Scheidemantle.
At issue were the criteria of Scheidemantle’s discrimination claim. The law requires that complainants meet three “prongs” of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission law.
First, a person must be considered a “protected class” meaning a minority or female. Second, there must be evidence that the person is qualified for the job. Third, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a less qualified “unprotected” person was hired.
In Scheidemantle’s case the trial court disagreed with the measurement of her qualifications for the position.
Deputy Attorney General Craig E. Maravich argued that the locksmith license Scheidemantle held was a “red herring” because it has no value in Pennsylvania.
Scheidemantle obtained the license through a home study course that was not officially regulated by professional or governmental organization.
Scheidemantle argued that her qualifications were irrelevant because another unqualified male had been hired.
“We hold that the District Court erred in determining that Scheidemantle failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against Slippery Rock on the basis that she failed to meet the job posting’s requirements” wrote Judge Ambro.
“Because Slippery Rock placed similarly unqualified males in the locksmith position, it could no longer point to the job postings objective qualifications as a valid reason for refusing to promote Scheidemantle” The appeals panel concluded.
Scheidemantle is currently employed as a supervisor of the Slippery Rock Grounds Crew and is featured on a university website honoring senior employees.
Calls to both the Pennsylvania Attorney General, who represented the university and Scheidemantle were not returned.