Laserfiche WebLink
were hired since wcnen (the class nerhers) were 4.68 percent of the <br />applicants. In this award the court was discounting backpay by a <br />measure of Che probability that the women would have obtained the <br />pay but for the discriminatory test scorin;g. <br />In • • m Ck> ^ ^ t 569 F.2d 1231 (3rd Cir. 1577), <br />plaintiff brought action under the Age Discrinination Act and the <br />trial court stated that rebuttal evidence, offered by the employer, <br />could have included factors such as disqualifying mental attributes <br />or inability to pass any city examination. <br />The court in Rogers v. EEOC. 551 F.2d 456 (D.C, Cir. 1977). <br />found liability under Title VII for race discrimination. The <br />Appeals Court denied injunctive relief and back pay because the <br />plaintiff was not the best qualified applicant for the position. <br />The court held t.hat monetary relief should be denied if plaintiff's <br />qualifications were such t.hat he would not, even absent the <br />discrimination, have been selected. at 457. <br />As :n the Evans case, this Court should not award back pay <br />damages to Starks or Fields because chat would, in essence, be <br />awarding them a job that would not have been offered to them in the <br />first place. Based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely that <br />either plaintiff would have been offered a job even if he had <br />passed the MPRS test. Evidence of criminal charges, lack of <br />communication skills, inappropriate sexual comments and behavior, <br />numerous serious ano repeated repri.mands from previous employment. <br />raiieo psychological, oral and written (non-MPRS) exams and <br />documented dishonesty all indicate that neither plaintiff was a