Policy banning nepotism in hiring not discriminatory

Listen to this article

A school district’s failure to hire an applicant because she is married to the man who would supervise her if hired does not violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) when the school district had an anti-nepotism policy in place, the anti-nepotism rule was a bona fide occupational qualification and the rule was determined essential for job performance, ruled the Court of Appeals.

A woman was invited to interview for a position as an assistant director of student placement in the St. Paul school district, but the school district then cancelled the interview because it determined that hiring her would violate its anti-nepotism policy because her husband was the direct supervisor of the position at the time.

The woman brought an action under the MHRA, but the trial court judge ruled in favor of the school district.

The Court of Appeals affirmed after finding no fault with the trial court judge’s analysis and determination that the anti-nepotism policy is a business necessity. The Court of Appeals also decided that the necessity of an occupational qualification can be established by compelling evidence, which may include opinion testimony of expert witnesses and is not utterly dependent on production of empirical or accumulated anecdotal evidence.

The seven-page decision, Belton-Kocher v. St. Paul School District, Minnesota Lawyer No. CA-487-00, was written by Judge Gary L. Crippen.

Minneapolis attorney Stephen W. Cooper, who represented the wife, said the opinion erroneously substitutes the amorphous concept of common sense for true legal reasoning.

A bona fide occupational qualification must be proven, not presumed, Cooper said, adding that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that common sense does not necessarily dictate that a husband and wife cannot effectively work together.

Cooper said that his client is currently considering whether to seek further appellate review.

Minneapolis attorney James R. Andreen, who represented the school district, disagreed with Cooper’s characterization of the court’s reasoning.

“The opinion states that there was testimony that experts in the field believe that there would be interference with job performance in numerous ways [if the husband and wife were to work together],” remarked Andreen. Moreover, the opinions of the witnesses were based on their expertise and knowledge — not simply on common sense, he added.

Husband supervised position

Evelyn Belton-Kocher applied for the position of assistant director of student placement with the St. Paul public school district. Her husband was the direct supervisor of this position at the time.

The St. Paul school district has an anti-nepotism policy that prohibits any employee of the school district from being directly supervised by a spouse or a member of the prospective employee’s immediate family.

Belton-Kocher was initially invited to interview for the position, but the district then canceled the interview because it determined that hiring her would violate its anti-nepotism policy.

Belton-Kocher filed suit under the MHRA, claiming that the district’s refusal of her application for employment constituted discrimination on the basis of her marital status in violation of the MHRA.

At trial, the school district presented two witnesses who testified that the marriage relationship between a supervisor and an employee who reports to the supervisor will interfere with job performance. The witnesses testified that the marriage relationship could affect impartiality relating to job-performance appraisals, job assignments, allocation of job-training opportunities for employees, administration of discipline and administration of employee benefits such as leave requests.

The witnesses also testified that an intimate relationship with one’s supervisor could affect judgment on the job and the morale of other employees.

The trial court judge ruled in favor of the school district and denied Belton-Kocher’s motion for the new trial.

Occupational qualification?

The Court of Appeals began by noting that the MHRA provides in part that it is an unfair employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire a person based upon marital status, except when marital status is a bona fide occupational qualification.

Under the St. Paul school district’s anti-nepotism policy, “[n]o employee of the School District shall be assigned to a position in which that employee is directly supervised by another employee who is … a member of his or her immediate family (parent, spouse, child, or sibling),” observed Crippen.

Neither party suggests that the trial court erred in its observation of law that the school district’s policy is acceptable if it is “reasonably necessary” for the hiring and performance of staff who conduct operations of the school district, observed Crippen. The required necessity for an otherwise-unlawful job qualification has been variously characterized as compelling, overriding or related to the essence of a job, continued the judge.

The Court of Appeals found no basis on which it might correct the trial court’s analysis of the business-necessity issue, and affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the school district’s policy states a bona fide occupational qualification.

The Court of Appeals rejected Belton-Kocher’s assertion that the evidence presented through the testimony of two witnesses was not sufficient to establish the legitimacy of the district’s policy. The court instead agreed with the trial court judge’s determination that the evidence presented is sufficiently convincing and is “representative of expert opinion rather than mere belief.”

The Court of Appeals also rejected Belton-Kocher’s argument that the testimony of the witnesses did not adequately address the issue of the need for the anti-nepotism policy because that testimony did not “squarely address the ultimate question of necessity.” The trial court judge did not err in making no demand for testimony “in the nature of an ultimate declaration of law,” Crippen said.

Belton-Kocher also had suggested that the considerations identified in this case are legally inadequate because of the broad impact of the trial court’s holding, which she argued was premised on evidence that is not narrowly confined to the hiring and job performance in the operation of schools.

The Court of Appeals rejected this suggestion, observing that the witnesses who established the school district’s case were experts in the administration of schools.

Moreover, wrote Crippen, the sufficiency of the witnesses’ evidence is judged only for the cases in which they testified, which involved job performance in an educational environment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the school district’s anti-nepotism policy constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification, and the school district’s refusal to hire Belton-Kocher on the basis of her marital status did not violate the MHRA.