DEFENDING FLORIDA EMPLOYERS: PRIOR PROMOTIONS CAN PREVENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

When an employer selects an employee for promotion, the employer usually has several potential employees to select for the promotion. The employer decides who is most deserving of the promotion based on legitimate factors relating to the position like skill, aptitude, and job performance. But less deserving employees may dislike the employer’s decision and file a lawsuit alleging discrimination. This is what occurred in the recent case of Roberson v. City of Pompano Beach, 2025 WL 611016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). The defendant, City of Pompano Beach, prevailed on a motion for summary judgment because the record evidence demonstrated the employee received prior promotions and was not as qualified as the person who received the promotion as issue. Roberson provides employers with a good example how they can assert a “prior promotion defense” in discrimination lawsuits and how employers can demonstrate the reasons for promoting the successful applicant were not mere pretext. The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

Roberson involved a long-time black male employee who regularly received superior performance reviews and two prior promotions. The employee applied for a third promotion, but was rejected. The promotion went to a white female instead. The employee sued claiming racial discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. In affirming summary judgment, the Roberson court analyzed the employee’s claims under a three-step analysis. First, the employee has to establish he or she belongs to a protected class like race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability. Second, the employee must demonstrate he or she qualified for the promotional position, the employee was subjected to adverse employment action, and the employer treated a different employee outside of the protected class more favorably. Third, if an employee satisfies the first two steps, the employer must provide a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for not promoting the employee.

The employer in Roberson was successful in step three – showing it had a legitimate reason to promote the white female. The evidence showed a three-member committee interviewed six candidates for the promotion. The committee favored the selected white female because she had an outgoing personality and two of the committee members previously worked with the white female candidate. By contract, the committee determined the employee who brought suit had a reserved and quiet personality. The committee determined an outgoing personality was better suited for the promotional position because it was a customer facing position.

The employee tried to argue the employer’s reason for promoting the white female over him was pretextual because he had better qualifications than the white female. However, the evidence demonstrated all applicants for the position were qualified. A “plaintiff cannot show pretext simply by showing that he was better qualified than the individual who received the position he wanted.” A plaintiff employee must, instead, prove pretext based on disparities in qualifications between the successful and unsuccessful applicants. Roberson, 2025 WL 611016 (the plaintiff must show “disparities between the successful applicant’s and his own qualifications were of such weight and significance that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff.”) The Roberson employee failed to meet this standard, therefore the court ruled against him.

Roberson shows that employers should always be prepared to justify promotions. The employer should not only be prepared to justify why it did not promote the unsuccessful candidates, but should also be prepared to promote the successful candidate.

The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.