Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc.

Background

Mazen Arakji sued Microchip Technology, Inc., alleging that Microchip failed to hire him for a Senior Firmware Design Engineer position because of his national origin, religion, and disability. He asserted a claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The opinion states that Arakji is Lebanese, wears a long beard for Muslim religious purposes, and has a musculoskeletal disability limiting his ability to grip and lift heavy objects.

Arakji applied for the position in April 2017, participated in a phone interview and an onsite interview, and was later rejected through Microsemi’s career website. The website stated that his background did not match the position’s requirements. The record also showed that Microchip continued seeking applicants and eventually hired an engineer for the position in October 2017.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the undisputed evidence requires judgment for the moving party. The court must view the facts favorably to the party opposing the motion and may not decide witness credibility or weigh competing evidence.

For the discrimination claim, the court applied the burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Under that framework, the plaintiff first presents a minimal initial showing of discrimination. The employer then must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. If it does so, the plaintiff must present evidence that the stated reason is a pretext—a false reason used to conceal discrimination.

Court’s analysis

The court assumed, without deciding, that the documents, photographs, videos, and other materials Arakji submitted through cloud-storage links were admissible for purposes of deciding the motion. The court did not make a final ruling on whether that evidence was admissible, and it noted that Microchip could renew its objections later.

The court concluded that Arakji met the low initial burden for a prima facie case of discrimination. The court found no dispute that he presented evidence concerning his protected characteristics, that he experienced an adverse employment action when Microchip did not hire him, and that he had evidence supporting his qualifications for the position. The court also found evidence that Microchip continued seeking applicants and eventually hired someone else.

Microchip provided evidence that the interviewers believed Arakji lacked sufficient skills or experience in C programming, debugging, and embedded software. Four Microchip employees who interviewed him gave no favorable hiring recommendation. The evidence also included a report that the negative recommendation was based on professional qualifications rather than Arakji’s national origin, religion, or disability, and that no interviewer referred to those characteristics while discussing his application.

The court stated that Arakji had submitted modest evidence of pretext, while Microchip had submitted substantial evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring him. The court declined to decide whether Arakji’s evidence was sufficient to meet his ultimate burden. Instead, it concluded that disputed material facts remained regarding pretext.

Disposition

The court denied Arakji’s motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed about whether Microchip’s stated reason for not hiring him was a pretext for discrimination.