Crowley v. Rockford Housing Authority

Citation: 1 F. App'x 499Docket: No. 00-2386

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; January 2, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In 1996, the Rockford Housing Authority (RHA) promoted a white employee, Chuck Doyle, to a supervisory position in its construction department without posting the vacancy. Jimmy Crowley, a long-time carpenter at RHA, suspected the promotion was racially motivated, as he believed RHA avoided posting the job to prevent him, a black employee, from applying. Crowley filed a discrimination charge and subsequently a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of RHA. 

RHA had established the construction department in 1994, previously overseen by the maintenance department. Joe Fiorenza, the maintenance supervisor, was promoted to director of the construction department in 1996 and subsequently appointed Doyle as acting Construction Supervisor. Fiorenza stated that Doyle's qualifications and rapport with staff influenced his decision, asserting that race was not a factor in the selection process. 

Crowley argued that he was better qualified and that RHA circumvented its own policy by not posting the position after learning of his interest. However, the court noted that Title VII does not obligate employers to advertise vacancies or preclude them from promoting employees without a competitive process. Crowley’s original claim focused on a different position—the Maintenance Coordinator—leading the court to infer a potential inconsistency in his allegations. The court suggested that Crowley’s shift in focus from the Maintenance Coordinator to the Construction Supervisor role arose after the lawsuit commenced, rather than being a straightforward case of discrimination concerning the latter position.

The scope of Crowley’s discrimination claim is questioned, particularly regarding whether he exhausted his administrative remedies, a point RHA did not raise in district court, leading to waiver of the issue. Crowley’s evidence of RHA being notified of his desire for the Construction Supervisor position is notably weak. His primary support hinges on a union official’s alleged conversation with the personnel manager about Crowley’s interest, which both deny. Crowley’s own testimony does not clarify what he communicated regarding the job. Furthermore, RHA's decision to post the job was likely made prior to Crowley’s purported discussions, undermining his assertion. A coworker's statement that he informed a manager of Crowley’s intent to apply pertains to a different position (Maintenance Coordinator), which Crowley overlooks. Crowley’s argument that RHA avoided posting the vacancy due to his expressed interest is flawed, particularly since he does not explain why he did not directly seek the position despite knowing it was open. There is no evidence that RHA required a job posting as a condition for applying, nor does Crowley show he was advised to wait for a posting. Ultimately, the record suggests Crowley failed to pursue the application process, even though he had reason to believe the position was available.

Crowley's argument hinges on the assumption that racial bias influenced RHA's decision not to post exempt job vacancies, a claim that requires evidence of an existing policy to post such jobs. The district court found no evidence supporting Crowley's assertion. RHA confirmed its policy mandates posting all bargaining unit jobs but denied any similar requirement for exempt positions. Testimony from RHA's executive director and assistant indicated no established practice of posting exempt jobs, although it occasionally does. Crowley’s belief that RHA always posts all jobs is unsupported; it contradicts his acceptance of an unposted promotion offer. His lack of direct knowledge about RHA's hiring practices further weakens his claims, as does the reliance on generalized beliefs from other employees. Additionally, Crowley pointed to one posted exempt position while neglecting to mention that the majority of top-level jobs had not been posted, including those held by Black employees. Consequently, Crowley failed to demonstrate any policy or practice regarding the posting of exempt positions, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's decision.