Postema v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs

Pamela A. Postema (plaintiff), a woman, began umpiring at the highest minor-league level (AAA level) in 1983. During her tenure as a AAA-level umpire, Postema was given numerous special responsibilities and honors, and several Major League Baseball (MLB) managers praised Postema’s umpiring. But Potsema asserted that she also was subjected to extensive sexual harassment. In addition, two employees of the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs (AL) (defendant)—one of the two major leagues, along with the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs (NL) (defendant)—publicly stated that Postema would not be hired as an MLB umpire unless she were better than male umpires. In October 1989, the Baseball Office for Umpire Development (BOUD) (defendant) compiled a list of AAA-level umpires and asked the AL if it was interested in hiring any of them. Citing a lack of vacancies, the AL replied that it was not interested. In November 1989, the Triple-A Alliance of Professional Baseball Clubs (Triple-A) (defendant) terminated Postema based on the AL and NL’s lack of interest in hiring her. Postema sued the NL, AL, BOUD, and Triple-A for, among other things, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by failing to promote or hire her to be an MLB umpire and for her termination as a AAA-level umpire. The AL moved for summary judgment, arguing that Postema could not meet her burden of presenting evidence to support an inference that the AL discriminated against her (i.e., a prima facie case of discrimination) in promoting or hiring because the AL did not promote or hire any umpires during the relevant period. Per the AL, Postema thus could not make the requisite showing that the AL hired men with comparable qualifications yet rejected her. The AL further argued that it did not discriminate against Postema when it said it was not interested in hiring anyone on the BOUD list because it also disclaimed interest in male AAA-level umpires due to the lack of vacancies. The AL also cited the fact that it was not Postema’s employer. Postema responded that (1) direct evidence—the AL officials’ statements—established a prima facie case, (2) the AL knew or hoped Triple-A would terminate her if the AL said it was not interested in her, and (3) Title VII covered nonemployers.