A white parole agent who sued the state claiming he lost a promotion to a less qualified African-American parole agent because of race should have a second chance to prove his case, a state appeals court ruled.
The case was filed by agent Philip Andrew Mounts, who is white, against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The corrections department promoted Ronnie Sims, a black parole agent, as the supervisor for the high-risk sex-offender unit in 2008, the position Mounts wanted.
Mounts claimed that he was the more experienced candidate, having spent many years as a sex-crime detective and his previous assignment to a parole unit that supervised high-risk sex offenders. Mounts argued that Sims lacked his knowledge and was chosen because of his race.
Corrections administrators said that Mounts was not the right fit and that race was not considered when Sims was hired.
A Fresno County Superior Court jury in 2011 rejected Mounts' reverse-discrimination claim.
But a three-justice panel from the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno reversed the jury's decision and sent the case back for retrial.
The appellate panel noted that the jury found race was a factor in the promotion decision, but that jurors concluded the state had other reasons to promote Sims instead of Mounts.
The justices found the jury likely was misled by a special verdict form put forward by the state's attorneys, and might have reached a different conclusion if it had received more thorough jury instructions.
Monrae English, Mounts' attorney, said "We are pleased with the decision. We look forward to presenting the case to a new jury in proving that race was the motivating factor in CDCR not promoting Mounts."
The case was filed by agent Philip Andrew Mounts, who is white, against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The corrections department promoted Ronnie Sims, a black parole agent, as the supervisor for the high-risk sex-offender unit in 2008, the position Mounts wanted.
Mounts claimed that he was the more experienced candidate, having spent many years as a sex-crime detective and his previous assignment to a parole unit that supervised high-risk sex offenders. Mounts argued that Sims lacked his knowledge and was chosen because of his race.
Corrections administrators said that Mounts was not the right fit and that race was not considered when Sims was hired.
A Fresno County Superior Court jury in 2011 rejected Mounts' reverse-discrimination claim.
But a three-justice panel from the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno reversed the jury's decision and sent the case back for retrial.
The appellate panel noted that the jury found race was a factor in the promotion decision, but that jurors concluded the state had other reasons to promote Sims instead of Mounts.
The justices found the jury likely was misled by a special verdict form put forward by the state's attorneys, and might have reached a different conclusion if it had received more thorough jury instructions.
Monrae English, Mounts' attorney, said "We are pleased with the decision. We look forward to presenting the case to a new jury in proving that race was the motivating factor in CDCR not promoting Mounts."
Dana Simas, spokeswoman for the CDCR, said the department received word of the decision and is preparing for a retrial.
Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/07/22/2820309/state-parole-agent-to-get-new.html#storylink=cpy
we all now this happens. the department still has expectations to fill positions by race and sex. it says so in some of the various jobs being posted for hire (mostly supervisor positions)
ReplyDeletethats how we end up with way under qualified people getting promoted. just take the former lieutenant that promoted to DVI and was rejected on probation a few months later..... im just saying
Reverse, given that discrimination is looked at to typically go one way.
ReplyDeleteBut your right, discrimination is discrimination.