Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc.

Background

Mazen Arakji, who was representing himself, applied in 2017 for a Senior Engineer Position in Microchip Technology, Inc.’s Firmware Design Group. Microchip did not offer him the position. Arakji alleged that the decision was based on his disability in his left arm, Arab ethnicity, Lebanese national origin, and Muslim religion. His sole remaining claim was discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Microchip’s evidence showed that the position required, among other things, embedded-systems development experience, strong C-programming skills, and experience with software development and debugging. Deva Srinivas Yelisetti reviewed Arakji’s resume and identified employment gaps, limited directly relevant experience, and no identified experience with specific debugging tools. During the interviews, Arakji was unable to solve the debugging and C-programming problems presented to him. The interviewers reported that his C-programming skills were weak and did not recommend hiring him. Microchip later hired another candidate whose application and interview performance, according to Microchip’s evidence, addressed the deficiencies identified in Arakji’s application.

Legal Framework

The parties agreed that the court should apply the three-step burden-shifting framework used for employment-discrimination claims. First, the employee must present an initial showing of discrimination. If that showing is made, the employer must identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. The employee then must provide evidence that the employer’s stated reason was a pretext—that is, an excuse masking unlawful discrimination.

Microchip argued that Arakji had not shown that the interviewers knew about his national origin, religion, or disability. Arakji argued that a reasonable jury could infer such knowledge from his name, long beard, and visible hand condition. The court agreed that a reasonable jury could reach those conclusions and held that Arakji had raised factual issues regarding the initial showing of discrimination.

Court’s Analysis

The court nevertheless found no genuine dispute about whether Microchip had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring Arakji. It identified evidence concerning his employment gaps, lack of directly relevant experience, lack of experience with particular debugging tools, inability to complete the programming and debugging tasks, and the interviewers’ opposition to making an offer. The court also noted evidence that the person eventually hired had continuous and directly relevant employment, experience with relevant debugging tools, and successfully completed the debugging exercise.

The court then held that Arakji failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find pretext. His opposition contained argument but no declarations, exhibits, or citations to evidence supporting that conclusion. The court stated that Arakji’s qualifications alone were insufficient to show that Microchip’s reasons were unworthy of belief. The court also granted Microchip’s unopposed request for judicial notice of specified population statistics and web articles about beards.

Disposition

The court found that Microchip had shown, as a matter of law, that it did not discriminate against Arakji. It GRANTED Microchip’s motion for summary judgment. The order does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice.