Since when do courts get to second-guess an employer’s hiring decisions? Since last Monday.

On April 10, 2023, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amul R. Thapar offered  his two cents  on the role the federal courts should have in second-guessing the business judgment of companies making hiring decisions:
Ignoring decades of precedent, the majority opinion imposes a rule requiring employers to favor credentials over relevant work experience in hiring. In so doing, the majority misunderstands Title VII, summary-judgment burdens, and the role of our court. The result? Everyone loses: The new rule will hurt employers, undermining the longstanding principle that businesses are free to choose between qualified candidates. And it will also hurt employees, especially workers who never had the chance to get a college degree.
Sadly, companies may get their money’s worth if they rely on Judge Thapar’s pragmatic, albeit dissenting , opinion in a lawsuit involving a plaintiff who claimed that her race motivated the defendant not to promote her.
Did the employer say or do anything overtly racist?
No. The plaintiff’s evidence was, effectively, “I’m more qualified for the promotion. Take  my  word on it, not my employer’s.”
And the two judges who wrote  the majority opinion  agreed.
Was the plaintiff qualified for the promotion? Sure, she was. She had an associate’s degree, a bachelor’s degree, and a master’s degree in business. The individual who got the promotion had a high school education. 
And on the application form section requesting the applicant identify “Special Skills/Associations,” the plaintiff highlighted seven awards and honors she had received during her career with the employer. Meanwhile, the person who got the promotion noted that she was “involved with all [her] children’s field trips.” 
In the defendant’s opinion, education and awards were secondary to the successful candidate’s relevant supervisory experience. Plus, according to the defendant, the one who got the promotion had a better job interview.
So, why did two Sixth Circuit judges decide the plaintiff’s failure-to-promote  Title VII claim  had enough legs to get to trial?
If a factfinder can conclude that a reasonable employer would have found the plaintiff to be significantly better qualified for the job, but this employer did not, the factfinder can legitimately infer that the employer consciously selected a less qualified candidate—something that employers do not usually do, unless some other strong consideration, such as discrimination, enters into the picture.
Here, the majority felt that the plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that her education, experience, and professional accomplishments made her better qualified for the promotion. And because a court must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff when the defendant moves for summary judgment on a discrimination claim, the plaintiff gets to have a jury decide her case.
How can employers avoid having a court scrutize its hiring decisions? Well, don’t hire in the Sixth Circuit for starters. But, if that proves unrealistic, document and apply objective hiring criteria for an open position. Remove as much subjectivity as possible so as not to invite folks with black robes and gavels making your hiring decisions for you.