Avoiding Risk in Hiring and Promotion: Guidance from a Recent Fourth Circuit Case

At some point in their career, nearly everyone has applied for a job only to discover that the employer already had someone in mind. It can seem cruel and unfair for the employer to even post the job—but is it illegal? Not necessarily.

A recent Fourth Circuit decision, Hood‑Wilson v. Board of Trustees of Baltimore County,[1] offers a helpful roadmap for how employers can structure hiring and promotion processes to minimize legal risk, even when a candidate may be favored internally. The case also underscores the importance of documentation, consistency, and clean decision‑making lines.

What Happened in Hood-Wilson

Melanie Hood‑Wilson, a black employee, applied for a promotion alongside several white candidates. The hiring process included:

• A five‑member panel, including Hood‑Wilson’s supervisor.
• Standardized interviews, with each candidate asked the same 14 questions and scored against the same standards.
• A white male candidate ultimately selected, based on his experience and interview performance.

Hood-Wilson sued the employer, alleging that she was passed over due to race and gender discrimination. Notably, although she pointed to remarks by her supervisor that came across as microaggressions, that supervisor was not the final decisionmaker.

The court rejected her claims, and its reasoning highlights several best practices for employers.

Key Lessons for Employers Making Hiring Decisions

• You should have objective reasons for your decision. The employer was able to describe in detail why the chosen candidate was the stronger hire, and the court said it was not going to question legitimate non-discriminatory reasons unless the passed-over candidate’s qualifications were “demonstrably superior.” That’s a tough burden for the losing candidate—but only if the reasons for the decision are well documented.
• Be careful when deciding who the final decisionmaker will be. The court’s analysis was laser-focused on the words and intent of the final decisionmaker, and the final decisionmaker wasn’t the employee’s supervisor who had made the remarks that offended her. Stray remarks from coworkers or even a supervisor will not make the employee’s case unless they are clearly connected to the hiring decision. So, make sure the ultimate decisionmaker has a clean, unbiased record.
• Preselection isn’t a discriminatory practice by itself. The court pointed out that preselection harmed all qualified candidates equally—regardless of race. That doesn’t mean you should do it though. A transparent, truly competitive process is the best defense against discriminatory preselection.
• Design hiring processes to be as objective and fair as possible. Whatever system the employer uses should have safeguards that promote consistency and reduce the risk that anyone’s biases drive the outcome. In this case, the employer used multi-member panels to score candidates based on standardized questions. Other practices that can help ensure objectivity include interviewing with predetermined questions about job-related criteria; employing blind resume reviews that remove identifying information (like names or graduation dates); and requiring documentation of the reasons for each hiring decision at the time it is made. The last thing you need is having a decisionmaker sitting on the stand one day testifying that someone was rejected because they weren’t a “good fit for our culture.”
• Base any disciplinary decisions on documented reasons. Hood-Wilson argued that racial discrimination was evidenced by the fact that she was disciplined more harshly than white employees for approving fraudulent timecards. But the court pointed out that her supervisor relied on detailed documentation of her long history of “inattention to fiscal management.” Consistent documentation protected the employer and undercut her claim.

The Hood‑Wilson decision underscores that even well‑intentioned hiring and promotion decisions can become legally complicated once they’re challenged. Processes that feel routine to managers may look very different under a court’s microscope. Employers who proactively structure fair, well‑documented procedures—and seek guidance when something feels uncertain—are far better positioned to avoid costly disputes. When in doubt, it’s worth a quick conversation with your employment counsel to make sure the process you’re relying on will hold up when it matters most.

[1] 162 F.4th 101, 108 (4th Cir. 2025)

If you have any questions regarding employment law, please contact a member of our Labor & Employment Team.

Subscribe now to receive the latest insights from our Labor & Employment Team.