because he wanted a black man for the position. Alton, however, testified later that he made the
statement to the human relations commission in order to avoid offending its members by giving
his real reason for rejecting Mr. Butta - i.e. emotional immaturity. Butta sued for violation of
his rights under Title VII not to be discriminated against on the basis of race.

The district court held that Butta satisfied his initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case.

First, Mr. Butta is a member of a protected class under Title VII. Second, he
applied for a position with the County for which the County was seeking
applicants. On the basis of his educational background and work experience, he
was qualified for that position. Third, despite his qualifications, Mr. Butta was
rejected for the executive secretary post. Finally, the County, after rejecting Mr.
Butta, continued to seek applicants for the position from persons with
qualifications similar to those of Mr. Butta, and in fact hired Mr. Nealy.251

The non-discriminatory reason for denial of the job given by the county was that Mr.
Butta was too immature in the opinion of the county executive. The court found that although
the burden shifted to Mr. Butta to show this reason was merely a pretext, he had discharged the
burden. Alton had little or no opportunity to judge Butta's maturity and had publicly stated on
several occasions that he preferred a black candidate for the position. Nevertheless, it would
have been difficult for Butta to win the suit if it had involved a decision by the county executive
between Nealy and Butta. The crucial factor was the rejection of Butta by the county executive
before Nealy had even applied for the job. Butta was awarded $8,467.90 in back pay.

In the past five years, litigation alleging racial discrimination from disparate treatment
continues to come before the courts in Maryland. In today's more sophisticated environment,
however, the chances of success are not good. An hispanic grounds and maintenance worker
won his suit against Montgomery County Community College,252 and a Westinghouse employee
avoided summary judgment in his suit for discriminatory discharge for allegedly sleeping on the
job.253 On the other hand, seven other plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the employer's
reasons were pretextual.254

C.        Affirmative Action Programs

The disparate treatment suit often produces an identified victim who can be compensated
by an award of damages and employment at the position to which he was entitled to be hired.
The disparate impact suit, on the other hand, is likely to result in a more amorphous class of
victims. The use of invalid hiring criteria that had a racially discriminatory effect is a statutory
violation, but it is difficult to know which individuals would have been hired if valid criteria had
been used. Simply enjoining the old procedures neither assures the fairness of new procedures
nor remedies the injury done by the earlier violation. No wholly accurate remedy has been
devised. One response, however, has been to establish hiring quotas to assure that employers

173