63 A.3d 692
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Dobkin sued University of Baltimore School of Law in Baltimore City for age discrimination under Md. Code Gov't § 20-606(a).
- UB hired a 32-year-old applicant with more clinical teaching experience; Dobkin was 56 and less qualified in that area per UB.
- UB moved for summary judgment; the circuit court granted it, concluding no triable issues on discrimination claims.
- Dobkin appealed raising two primary theories: disparate treatment based on age and disparate impact from a protected-class practice.
- UB’s decision relied on required teaching credentials and clinical pedagogy, emphasizing academic credentials over practical experience.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case for age discrimination established? | Dobkin shows protected class, qualified, not hired, position remained open. | Dobkin lacked the specific clinical teaching qualifications and interview history. | Dobkin established a prima facie case. |
| Legitimate non-discriminatory reason for non-hire? | UB’s reasons were pretextual and inconsistent. | UB had legitimate reasons: lack of clinical teaching experience and weaker qualifications. | UB’s reasons were legitimate and non-discriminatory. |
| Pretext and discriminatory intent shown by evidence? | Inconsistent explanations and stronger qualifications support pretext. | Differences in qualifications reflect job needs, not age bias. | No sufficient pretext evidence; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Disparate impact claim based on age against UB’s hiring practices? | UB had a practice discriminating against entry-level applicants over 40. | No credible demographic statistics showing a pattern; evidence inadequate. | No demonstrable disparate impact; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giant of Maryland, LLC v. Taylor, 188 Md.App. 1, 981 A.2d 1 (Md. 2009) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Giant of Maryland, LLC v. Taylor, 423 Md. 628, 33 A.3d 445 (Md. 2011) (subsequent ruling on pretext and disparate impact context)
- Maryland Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. v. Maryland Comm’n on Human Relations, 70 Md.App. 538, 521 A.2d 1263 (Md. App. 1987) (discrimination burden and evaluation of legitimate reasons)
- Nerenberg v. RICA of Southern Maryland, 131 Md.App. 646, 750 A.2d 655 (Md. App. 2000) (prima facie framework and pretext analysis in Maryland)
- Williams v. Maryland Dpt. of Human Resources, 136 Md.App. 153, 764 A.2d 351 (Md. App. 2000) (proof burden and evaluation of interview vs. qualifications)
- Bowen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 60 Md.App. 299, 482 A.2d 921 (Md. App. 1984) (evidence of future hazard and discrimination burden shifting)
- Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc., 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 896 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (pretext analysis in non-identical qualifications context)
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. EEOC, 243 F.3d 846, 852 (4th Cir. 2001) (inconsistent statements as evidence of pretext)
- Turner v. Public Serv. Co. of Colorado, 563 F.3d 1136, 1147-48 (10th Cir. 2009) (statistical evidence and disparate impact considerations cautioned)