## Facts

- United Air Lines operated under a long-standing, court-approved Title VII consent decree addressing prior race discrimination in hiring and supporting efforts to increase African-American representation among flight attendants.
- In July 1998, United advertised for flight attendant positions emphasizing a bilingual requirement (English plus another language).
- Christopher Dix, a white, English-only applicant, attended an information session where a United representative stated that anyone who was not bilingual or African American did not meet the job requirements and should leave.
- Dix stayed, completed application materials, and indicated on at least one form that he spoke another language despite being monolingual.
- During the selection process, United required an oral presentation; Dix received low scores.
- United did not hire Dix and extended offers to at least three candidates who were not African American.
- Dix sued under Title VII, alleging United applied the bilingual requirement more strictly to white applicants and used affirmative action to deny him employment because of race.

## Issues

1. Whether Dix produced sufficient evidence that United’s refusal to hire him was because of his race, rather than for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
2. Whether, to the extent United’s affirmative-action measures influenced hiring, those measures violated Title VII.

## Decision

- The court granted United’s motion for summary judgment and denied Dix’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
- United articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring Dix, including his poor interview/presentation performance and his misrepresentation of language ability.
- Dix failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find those reasons were pretextual or that race was the determinative reason for his non-selection.
- The existence of a remedial, consent-decree-based affirmative-action plan did not, by itself, establish unlawful discrimination against Dix.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII disparate-treatment claims using the McDonnell Douglas framework require evidence permitting a reasonable finding that the employer’s stated reasons are pretext for intentional race discrimination.
- Subjective belief, speculation, and unsupported assertions about discriminatory motives are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
- Remedial affirmative-action measures consistent with Weber/Johnson principles may be permissible under Title VII when aimed at addressing a manifest imbalance and when they do not impose an absolute bar or unnecessarily trammel non-beneficiaries’ opportunities.
- A plaintiff challenging an employer with race-conscious policies must still link the adverse decision to race in the plaintiff’s case, not merely to the employer’s general remedial goals.

## Conclusion

Summary judgment was entered for United because Dix did not produce evidence that race caused his non-selection in light of United’s legitimate reasons, and United’s consent-decree-based affirmative-action efforts were not shown to have unlawfully excluded white applicants from meaningful hiring opportunities.


Dix v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 99 C 3535, 2000 WL 1230463 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2000)