## Facts

- Sharon C. Foster, an African-American civilian employee in the Newport, Rhode Island naval establishment, sought advancement and obtained a position at the Newport Naval Hospital in July 1990.
- The Hospital created a management analyst position. To avoid losing funding if the job remained unfilled at the start of the new fiscal year, the director of administration used a noncompetitive search rather than ordinary competitive hiring procedures.
- Staff compiled five possible candidates from existing files, including Foster, who was the only non-Caucasian on the list and the only candidate already employed at the Hospital.
- The director questioned why James Berry, a white acquaintance of a personnel specialist, was not listed and then directed that the job requirements and grade level be rewritten to match Berry’s qualifications.
- The Hospital proceeded under Veterans Recruitment Appointment authority, resulting in only Berry being eligible; Berry was selected for the position.
- Foster pursued administrative relief and then sued the Secretary of the Navy under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination in the nonselection.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Foster established a prima facie case and was more qualified than Berry, but concluded the selection resulted from preselection/cronyism rather than racial animus and entered judgment for the Secretary.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that the Navy’s manipulation of the hiring process was motivated by favoritism toward Berry rather than race, defeating Foster’s Title VII claim.
2. Whether evidence of superior qualifications and procedural manipulation compelled a finding that the stated reason (preselection/cronyism) was a pretext for intentional race discrimination.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the judgment for the Secretary of the Navy.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in finding the motive was cronyism/preselection, not racial animus.
- The court stated that even severe unfairness and procedural manipulation are not actionable under Title VII absent proof that a protected characteristic motivated the decision.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII requires proof that an adverse employment decision was made “because of” race (or another protected trait); unfairness alone is insufficient.
- Nepotism, cronyism, and preselection, standing alone, are not Title VII violations unless tied to a prohibited discriminatory motive.
- Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, showing a prima facie case and relative superiority in qualifications does not automatically establish intentional discrimination; the factfinder may credit a nondiscriminatory motive.
- Appellate review of a trial court’s findings on motive and credibility after a bench trial is for clear error, and such findings are not disturbed absent a definite and firm conviction of mistake.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld judgment for the Navy because the trial court permissibly found that the hiring process was engineered to favor a friend rather than to exclude Foster because of race, and Title VII does not reach favoritism unconnected to a protected trait.


Foster v. Dalton, 71 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 1995)