D.C. Circuit Demonstrates the Danger of poor Documentation
1 min read
Jan 24, 2012
In a decision released this week, the D.C. Circuit has proven that there is still truth to the old adage: document, document, document. The case, Hamilton v. Geithner, arose when a federal employee was passed over for a promotion. The begrudged employee felt that he had been far more qualified than the employee selected for the position. He brought suit against the IRS (his employer) under Title VII, calling its assertion that the selected employee had been more qualified a pretext, and alleging that the other employee (a Caucasian female) had actually been selected over him (an African-American male) based upon his race and gender. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the disparity in the employees’ qualifications was “not significant enough to warrant an inference of discrimination.”
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit determined otherwise. The employee’s “superior qualifications taken together with other flaws in the employer’s explanation,” the D.C. Circuit found, “creates a genuine issue of material fact that only a jury can resolve.” What were those “other flaws in the employer’s explanation?” Specifically, the record contained “no contemporaneous documentation of the [employer’s] proffered explanation.” In other words, there had been no notes from the job interviews, no complete documentation of the job requirements, and essentially no written evidence of the interviewers’ observations or conclusions. (Embarrassingly, the IRS did turn in one page of handwritten notes which it described as “vague,” “ambiguous,” and incomplete.) The Court concluded that “[t]o sum up, … we believe that, when taken together, the evidence of a significant disparity in the candidates’ qualifications, the highly subjective nature of the [employer’s] proffered nondiscriminatory explanation, and the absence of any contemporaneous documentation supporting that explanation could lead a reasonable jury” to find for the employee. This case is a good reminder for all employers that the failure to document can turn what would be an easy case into a disastrous one.
Topics
Featured Insights

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

In The News
Sep 3, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Analyzes FTC Suit over Amazon’s Advertising Pricing Practices

In The News
Sep 2, 2026
Yvonne Ocrant Discusses Horse Business Legal Protection on the EquineRevShare Podcast

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 2, 2026
Two Key Wins for Mortgage Lenders on Illinois Statute of Limitations

Press Release
Sep 2, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Reappointed to CBA's Antitrust & Trade Regulation Section Executive Committee


