The decision reverses an opinion by the appeals court that the state human rights act didn’t apply to municipal judges. Specifically, § 213.055 of the MHRA states:
1. It shall be an unlawful employment practice: (1) For an employer, because of the race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability of any individual: (a) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability;
(b) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or his employment applicants in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status and an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability[.]
The city council members objected when all of the three nominees for the judgeship turned out to be white. Here are some of the statements made by council members:
“There is no diversity whatsoever . . . within the panel of contestants who have been referred to us.”
“I feel as though at this point I’m given . . . a very narrow opportunity for selection because I only have a sampling of one demographic of our city and that is Caucasian females.”
“[T]he fact remains this panel has no diversity whatsoever . . . I move that we reject . . . this panel back to the committee and not make a selection at this time.”
“For me there is an issue of equity related to racial mix, when you have thirteen candidates and you have six of color and none appear on the panel, it’s hard for me to believe that you have six of those candidates of color none of whom would qualify to be in the top three . . . I just don’t believe that is the case.”
“I have a hunch that if this [panel] is returned to the commission that there is a message there.”
“All one need do is look at the numbers, race matters in America, it matters in the State of Missouri and it matters in the city of Kansas City.”
“We need to send this panel back and show that this city, of Kansas City, is fair in its diversity practices” because “this [panel] does not reflect the diversity of Kansas City.”
“When we talk about diversity, do we include gender?”
“If there were three qualified black candidates on this panel, I would not be voting to reject the panel because they . . . did not represent the exact demographics of this city” and “this discussion is absolutely ridiculous . . . we have three qualified candidates here . . . we ought to vote for [one of them].”
“This has nothing to do with your [the panelists’] qualifications . . . I think you are certainly qualified.”
“We continue to talk about divisiveness . . . in terms of race relations . . . but the divisiveness took place when the panel was presented.”
“It ha[s] nothing to do with their credentials; I think all of them are highly qualified.”
“We have been in line for a long time . . . a lot of people have been in line . . . just to be represented.”
“Diversity . . . being an African-American in America it’s a whole lot different than you can ever imagine and so you really can’t say I understand where you are.”
“It’s not about these women. Each of these women have gone to college, earned degrees and made a very good life for themselves and have good reputations.”
“I think it’s a shame . . . [and] it may even be illegal for us to sit here and not have the courage to [s]elect a judge today.”
“These three women have risen up in a field that is male dominated . . . for us to dismiss the diversity they bring to the table is unfortunate . . . so I’m disappointed that we don’t feel you’re [the panel] minority enough – that you’re not diverse enough.”
Howard testified that she was asked why she even bothered to apply when she was not black. She was awarded $633,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.
Here is the opinion.
Source: ABA Journal