A Maine insurance company worker, well regarded by her employer, was encouraged to apply for a second promotion. She believed she was the front runner for the job, but another candidate was chosen. Convinced that sex stereotyping was behind her failure to get the job, she sued.

What happened. “Carson” joined Wellpoint, a division of Anthem Health Plan of Maine, in 1997 and was promoted to recovery specialist II in 1999. In 2006, her boss encouraged her to apply for a promotion to Team Lead. She and another internal female candidate were interviewed, and the other woman got the promotion. Carson’s supervisor told her it was because “you’re going to school, you have the kids and you just have a lot on your plate right now.” Carson’s children then were an 11-year-old son and 6-year-old triplets, and she was taking an evening university course.

Knowing she had 6 more years of experience as a specialist II than the other candidate, was already doing parts of the Team Lead’s job, and had gotten a recent higher performance rating than her rival, Carson was convinced she was better qualified for the job. So, on the basis of three remarks about her young children—two by her boss and one by another decision maker—she decided that sex stereotyping had been the real reason for her rejection. She hired an expert witness—a sociologist—to testify about prevailing sex stereotypes, and sued in federal district court. A judge there refused to hear the expert and ruled in favor of Wellpoint. Carson appealed to the 1st Circuit, which covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

What the court said. Carson’s boss told appellate judges that Carson was rejected because she didn’t present herself as well as her rival during the interview—a different reason than she’d given Carson. The other two comments Carson cited were less clear evidence of stereotyping, but that first explanation by her boss suggested to judges that the boss felt a woman with so many childcare responsibilities could not be fully dedicated to her job.

Judges learned that, in fact, Carson’s husband was at home for the children during the day. And, they saw little hard evidence of Carson’s allegedly poor interview skills. Finding genuine issues of fact for a jury to decide, judges sent the case back to the district court. They did affirm the refusal to hear Carson’s expert witness. Chadwick v. Wellpoint, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, No. 08-1685 (3/26/09).

Point to remember: It’s always ill-advised to change your explanation for an adverse employment decision in midstream; it makes judges suspicious about your motives.