## Facts

- Patricia A. Thomas, a Black woman educated in Washington County, Virginia, graduated cum laude from Emory & Henry College and obtained Virginia certification to teach secondary social studies.
- Beginning in 1982, Thomas applied for teaching positions in the Washington County school system and kept her application current.
- Over roughly two years, the School Board filled three relevant positions with white teachers without notifying Thomas of the openings; Thomas learned of the vacancies only after they were filled.
- Two of the positions were filled by a more qualified candidate and by an internal transfer, respectively.
- The third position was filled by Mary Sue Smith, a white applicant who learned of the opening by word-of-mouth and was hired after one interview (where three interviews were typical); Smith was also the wife of a Washington County teacher.
- The Board contended Thomas’s application was not considered because a cover sheet indicated she was not yet certified; information in the file reflected certification, but the file was apparently not opened.
- Evidence described a longstanding hiring system relying on word-of-mouth recruiting and nepotism, with persistent minimal representation of Black professional employees (including teachers) in the school system.
- Thomas filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue letter, and sued under Title VII seeking (1) individual relief (job and monetary relief) and (2) prospective injunctive relief to stop the challenged hiring practices.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Thomas’s Title VII claim for individual relief based on the Board’s failure to hire her.
2. Whether the district court erred by failing to consider and rule on Thomas’s request for injunctive relief targeting the Board’s overall hiring practices under Title VII.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the individual failure-to-hire claim.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment to the extent it omitted consideration of injunctive relief and remanded for further proceedings on that request.
- The court distinguished between proof needed to obtain make-whole relief for a specific hiring decision and proof supporting prospective relief aimed at an allegedly discriminatory hiring system.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII permits challenges to both intentional discrimination and facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately exclude protected groups without sufficient justification (disparate impact).
- A plaintiff may fail to prove entitlement to individual hiring relief yet still pursue injunctive relief addressing a practice that allegedly perpetuates exclusion.
- A district court must separately evaluate claims for prospective equitable relief aimed at systemic practices; rejection of an individual claim does not automatically dispose of a request for an injunction.
- Informal recruitment practices, including word-of-mouth hiring and nepotism, may be unlawful under Title VII if they operate to maintain prior racial exclusion and restrict access to openings.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld the denial of individual relief because the record supported a nondiscriminatory explanation for Thomas’s nonselection, but it required the district court to address whether the School Board’s nepotistic, word-of-mouth hiring system violated Title VII and warranted injunctive relief.


Thomas v. Wash. Cnty. Sch. Bd., 915 F.2d 922 (4th Cir. 1990)