In one case, an applicant was turned down for a job he thought should have been his. He was African American, and the hired applicant was Caucasian.

He claimed he was more qualified and “mature” than the guy who got the job. The company said both were qualified, but the other applicant was a better fit.

The rejected applicant sued for bias. In court, he gave no specific reason why his qualifications were better — his experience and education weren’t any more impressive than the successful applicant.

So the judge threw out the case. He said it isn’t a court’s job to second guess employers’ hiring decisions. Companies are free to decide who’s the best candidate for a job, as long as the decision doesn’t include discriminatory factors.

The lesson: When two or more applicants appear equally qualified, a manager will often have to use some subjective reason for choosing one over the others. That’s OK, as long as there’s no appearance of bias.

Cite: Spell v. Connecticut, Office of Chief State’s Attorney

A man was hired to teach courses at a community college. Shortly after he started working, he was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder and began “functionally living as a female.”

The school began receiving complaints that the male teacher was using the women’s restroom, and he was told to use the men’s room. He refused and was fired.

The employee sued, claiming he was being discriminated against because of his gender. Who won?

Answer: the company.

The court acknowledged that discrimination based on gender stereotypes is discrimination based on gender — therefore, in some case, companies can be sued for bias against transgender employees.

However, in this case, the company had a good reason for enforcing its rest room rule — students expressed concerns about their privacy and safety. The case was thrown out.

Cite: Kastl v. Maricopa County Community College District.