As a seasoned employment law attorney with 30 years of experience specializing in complex employment litigation, I’ve seen firsthand the challenges of navigating failure to promote cases. These cases, particularly those involving sexual discrimination, require a nuanced approach to discovery that can make or break your case.

Drawing from my extensive experience, including our firm’s current handling of 17 cases against the New Jersey State Police for various discrimination-based failure to promote claims, I’ve developed a comprehensive set of interrogatories designed to cut through common defense tactics and elicit crucial information.

This article presents what I consider to be the 100 best interrogatories for sexual discrimination failure to promote cases. These questions are the result of years of refining our approach, learning from defense obstruction tactics, and adapting to the evolving landscape of employment law.

While these interrogatories are particularly tailored for sexual discrimination cases, they can be easily adapted for other types of discrimination in failure to promote scenarios, including those based on gender, sexual orientation, race, and national origin.

My goal in sharing this toolkit is to ease the burden on fellow plaintiff’s employment law attorneys. By providing a comprehensive, battle-tested set of interrogatories, I hope to arm my colleagues with the tools they need to effectively advocate for their clients and navigate the complex terrain of employment discrimination litigation.

Remember, while these interrogatories provide a solid foundation, they should be tailored to the specific facts of each case. Use them as a starting point, and adapt as necessary to fit the unique circumstances of your clients and the particular nuances of your jurisdiction.

The following interrogatories are grouped by category or purpose. Grouping interrogatories by category and purpose is helpful for several reasons:

  1. Organization and clarity: It makes the set of interrogatories more organized and easier to understand for all parties involved – you, the defense, and the court. This clarity can help avoid confusion and potential disputes.
  1. Efficiency in responding: For the defense, it allows them to more efficiently gather and provide information, as they can focus on one area at a time rather than jumping between unrelated topics.
  1. Easier identification of objections: If the defense objects to certain categories of questions, it’s easier for them to articulate their objections when the questions are grouped logically.
  1. Streamlined review process: For the court, if they need to rule on a motion to compel, having interrogatories grouped by category makes it easier to review and make decisions on related questions together.
  1. Demonstrates purpose and relevance: Grouping by purpose helps demonstrate the relevance of each set of questions to the case, which can be important if the defense challenges the appropriateness of certain interrogatories.
  1. Facilitates partial responses: If there are objections to some questions but not others within a category, it’s easier for the defense to provide partial responses while maintaining objections to specific questions.
  1. Aids in follow-up: For you, it makes it easier to identify areas where follow-up questions or requests for production might be necessary based on the responses received.
  1. Supports motion practice: If you need to file a motion to compel, having interrogatories grouped makes it easier to argue for the relevance and necessity of specific categories of information.
  1. Demonstrates thoughtfulness: It shows the court that you’ve put careful thought into your discovery requests, which can lend credibility to your position if disputes arise.

By grouping interrogatories logically, you create a more manageable, purposeful, and effective discovery process for all parties involved.

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant-Failure to Promote, Gender Discrimination

Background Information

  1. Please state the full name, job title, and relationship to the defendant of the person answering these interrogatories.
  1. If the person answering these interrogatories is not the named defendant, please explain in detail why this person is providing the answers instead of the named defendant.
  1. Please describe the process used to gather information to answer these interrogatories, including:


a. Who was consulted?
b. What documents were reviewed?
c. How much time was spent preparing the answers?

  1. Identify all individuals who assisted in preparing the answers to these interrogatories, including their names, job titles, and roles in the preparation process.
  1. For each interrogatory answered, please state whether the answer is based on:


a. Personal knowledge of the person answering;
b. Information obtained from others;
c. Review of documents or records.


If the answer is based on information from others or document review, please identify the sources.

  1. Please state whether any attorney assisted in preparing the answers to these interrogatories. If so, please identify the attorney(s) and describe the nature of their assistance.
  1. Are there any interrogatories for which the person answering does not have complete information? If so, please identify those interrogatories and explain why complete information is not available.
  1. Please confirm that the person answering these interrogatories has the authority to make binding statements on behalf of the defendant. If not, please explain the limitations of their authority.
  1. Has the person answering these interrogatories reviewed all relevant documents and consulted with all individuals with knowledge of the matters in question before providing these answers? If not, please explain why not.
  1. Please state whether the answers provided are based on the respondent’s best knowledge and belief after reasonable inquiry. If not, please explain why not.
  1. Please identify all individuals involved in the decision-making process for the promotion in question, including their names, job titles, and roles in the decision.
  1. Describe in detail the promotion selection process, including all steps from application to final decision.
  1. Provide the qualifications and criteria used to evaluate candidates for the promotion.

Comparator Information

  1. Identify all individuals who were considered for the promotion, including their gender, qualifications, and years of experience.
  1. For each individual promoted instead of the plaintiff, describe in detail why they were selected over the plaintiff.
  1. For each individual considered for the promotion, provide:


a. Their complete employment history with the department, including all positions held and dates;
b. Their educational background, including degrees, certifications, and relevant training;
c. Their performance evaluation scores for the past 5 years;
d. Any commendations, awards, or special recognitions received;
e. Any disciplinary actions or reprimands in their file.

  1. Describe in detail the interview process for the promotion, including:

a. Who conducted the interviews;
b. The questions asked of each candidate;
c. How responses were scored or evaluated;
d. Any notes or records from the interviews.

  1. Provide the specific criteria used to evaluate candidates for the promotion, including how each criterion was weighted in the decision-making process.
  1. For each criterion used in the evaluation process, explain how the plaintiff and the selected candidate(s) compared.
  1. Identify any minimum qualifications for the position and explain how each candidate met or exceeded these qualifications.
  1. Describe any testing or assessment procedures used in the promotion process and provide the results for all candidates.
  1. Explain any differences in the application or interview process among candidates, if any.
  1. Provide details of any internal recommendations or endorsements received by each candidate.
  1. Describe any affirmative action or diversity considerations that were part of the promotion decision-making process.
  1. For the past 10 years, provide a breakdown of promotions to this position or similar positions by gender.
  1. Identify any complaints or concerns raised about the fairness of the promotion process in the past 5 years and describe how they were addressed.
  1. Explain any differences in the qualifications or experience between the plaintiff and the selected candidate(s) that were deemed significant in the decision-making process.

The primary aim is to establish a clear comparison between the plaintiff and other candidates who were considered for the promotion, particularly those who were ultimately selected. By requesting detailed information about each candidate’s qualifications, experience, and performance history, these questions seek to objectively assess whether the plaintiff was indeed the most qualified candidate or if there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for choosing other candidates. Additionally, these interrogatories seek to establish a broader context for the promotion decision by examining historical data and past practices. This historical perspective can help identify patterns of discrimination that may not be immediately apparent in a single case. The questions about past complaints, diversity considerations, and gender breakdowns in previous promotions aim to uncover any systemic issues within the organization that could support the plaintiff’s claim of discrimination.

Policies and Procedures

  1. Describe all policies and procedures related to promotions within the law enforcement agency, including any specific policies addressing equal opportunity or non-discrimination.
  1. Provide details of any training given to decision-makers regarding non-discrimination in promotion decisions.
  1. List all changes made to promotion policies and procedures in the past 10 years, including the dates of changes and reasons for each modification.
  1. Describe any instances in the past 10 years where promotion policies or procedures were not followed, and explain why.
  1. Provide details of any internal audits or reviews of promotion practices conducted in the past 10 years, including findings and resulting actions.
  1. Identify all individuals involved in creating, modifying, or approving promotion policies in the past 10 years.
  1. Describe any complaints or grievances filed regarding promotion practices in the past 10 years and their outcomes.
  1. Explain how the agency ensures consistent application of promotion policies across different departments or units.
  1. Provide statistics on the demographic composition of those promoted to the position in question over the past 10 years, broken down by protected characteristics (e.g., gender, race, age).
  1. Describe any exceptions or waivers to standard promotion policies that have been granted in the past 10 years, including reasons for these exceptions.
  1. Explain how the agency monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of its promotion policies in ensuring non-discrimination.
  1. Provide details of any external consultations or benchmarking exercises conducted to assess or improve promotion policies in the past 10 years.
  1. Describe any informal practices or unwritten rules that influence promotion decisions, if any.
  1. Explain how the agency addresses potential conflicts of interest in the promotion decision-making process.

These questions aim to uncover patterns, inconsistencies, or problematic practices in the agency’s promotion policies and procedures that could indicate discrimination or unfairness

Plaintiff-Specific Information

  1. Explain in detail all reasons why the plaintiff was not selected for promotion.
  1. Identify any performance evaluations, commendations, or disciplinary actions related to the plaintiff in the two years preceding the promotion decision.
  1. Provide a detailed employment history for the plaintiff, including all positions held, dates of employment, job responsibilities, and reasons for any changes in position or title.
  1. Describe in detail the plaintiff’s performance in their current/most recent position, including specific examples of strengths and weaknesses.
  1. Identify all training, professional development opportunities, or mentoring programs offered to or completed by the plaintiff during their employment.
  1. List all performance goals or objectives set for the plaintiff in the two years preceding the promotion decision, and describe the extent to which these were met.
  1. Describe any instances where the plaintiff demonstrated leadership skills or took on additional responsibilities beyond their job description.
  1. Identify any complaints or concerns raised by colleagues, supervisors, or subordinates about the plaintiff’s work performance or conduct.
  1. Provide details of any accommodations requested by or provided to the plaintiff during their employment.
  1. Describe any discussions or meetings held with the plaintiff regarding their career progression or potential for promotion within the organization.
  1. Identify any projects or initiatives led by the plaintiff, and describe their outcomes and impact on the department or organization.
  1. Explain any differences in qualifications, experience, or skills between the plaintiff and the individual(s) selected for promotion.
  1. Describe any feedback provided to the plaintiff regarding their readiness for promotion or areas for improvement to be considered for future promotions.
  1. Identify any instances where the plaintiff was considered for promotion or other career advancement opportunities prior to the decision in question, and explain the outcomes of those considerations.

These interrogatories aim to provide a comprehensive picture of the plaintiff’s work history, performance, and potential from the defense’s perspective, which can be valuable in understanding their rationale for the promotion decision.

Historical Data

  1. Describe any complaints or allegations of gender discrimination in promotions within the department in the past five years, and their outcomes.
  1. For each year in the past 10 years, provide:

a. The total number of employees eligible for promotion to the position in question, broken down by gender;
b. The number of employees who applied for or were considered for promotion to the position, broken down by gender;
c. The number of employees actually promoted to the position, broken down by gender.

  1. Describe in detail any changes made to the promotion policies, procedures, or criteria for the position in question over the past 10 years. For each change, explain:

a. The nature of the change;
b. The date it was implemented;
c. The reason for the change;
d. Any impact analysis conducted regarding the change’s effect on gender diversity.

  1. For the past 10 years, provide a list of all individuals who have served on promotion committees or as decision-makers for the position in question, including their gender and dates of service.
  1. Describe any gender diversity or equal opportunity initiatives implemented by the department in the past 10 years related to promotions or leadership positions. For each initiative, provide:
    a. A description of the initiative;
    b. The date it was implemented;
    c. Any measurable outcomes or results.
  1. For the past 10 years, provide details of any internal audits, reviews, or studies conducted regarding gender equity in promotions or leadership positions within the department. Include dates, key findings, and any resulting actions taken.
  1. Describe any training provided to managers, supervisors, or promotion decision-makers in the past 10 years regarding gender bias, diversity, or equal opportunity in promotions. Include dates, content summaries, and attendance records.
  1. For the past 10 years, provide anonymized data on the qualifications, experience, and performance evaluations of all candidates considered for promotion to the position in question, broken down by gender and promotion outcome.
  1. Describe any mentorship, leadership development, or career advancement programs offered by the department in the past 10 years. For each program, provide:
                a. A description of the program;
                b. Eligibility criteria;
                c. Selection process;
                d. Participation rates by gender.

These interrogatories aim to provide a comprehensive historical perspective on gender representation in promotions, changes in policies and practices over time, and efforts to address potential gender bias or discrimination.

Additional Relevant Information

  1. Identify all documents related to the promotion decision at issue, including applications, interview notes, and evaluation forms.
  1. Describe any efforts made by the department to ensure gender diversity in leadership positions.
  2. Provide a complete list of all documents, electronic records, and communications related to:

a. The promotion process in general;
b. This specific promotion decision;
c. The plaintiff’s candidacy;
d. The successful candidate’s selection.

  1. Describe in detail all formal and informal methods used to announce promotion opportunities within the department.
  1. Identify all individuals involved in any aspect of the promotion decision-making process, including those who:

a. Reviewed applications;
b. Conducted interviews;
c. Provided input or recommendations;
d. Made the final decision.

  1. Provide details of any external consultants or agencies involved in the promotion process, including their role and any reports or recommendations they provided.
  1. Describe any software, algorithms, or automated systems used in any part of the promotion process, including how they work and how they were developed.
  1. Explain any consideration given to workforce demographics or diversity goals in the promotion decision-making process.
  1. Provide details of any budget allocations or resources dedicated to promoting gender diversity in leadership positions over the past five years.
  1. Describe any partnerships or collaborations with external organizations aimed at improving gender diversity in law enforcement leadership.
  1. Explain any measures taken to address potential unconscious bias in the promotion process.
  2. Provide details of any exit interviews or surveys conducted with employees who left the department in the past five years, particularly any feedback related to promotion opportunities or gender equity.
  1. Describe any mentoring or sponsorship programs available to employees seeking advancement, including how participants are selected.
  1. Explain how the department measures and tracks progress in achieving gender diversity in leadership positions.
  1. Provide details of any benchmarking activities conducted to compare the department’s gender diversity in leadership with other law enforcement agencies or industries.
  1. Describe any initiatives or programs aimed at retaining and advancing women in the department, including any targeted leadership development programs.
  1. Explain how promotion criteria and job descriptions are developed and reviewed to ensure they do not inadvertently disadvantage any gender.

These interrogatories aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the department’s promotion practices, efforts towards gender diversity, and any potential systemic issues that could impact gender equity in promotions.

Expert Witness Information

  1. Identify all expert witnesses the defense intends to call at trial, including their names, qualifications, and areas of expertise.
  1. For each expert witness identified:
  1.  Provide a copy of their curriculum vitae or resume.
  2.  List all materials and information provided to or reviewed by the expert in forming their opinions.
  3.  State the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify.
  4.  Provide a summary of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify.
  5.  State the grounds for each opinion the expert will offer.
  1. Produce all reports prepared by any expert witnesses, including any drafts or preliminary reports.
  1. Provide the compensation arrangement for each expert witness, including their hourly rate and total amount billed to date.
  1. List all cases in which each expert has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding 4 years.
  1. Identify any publications authored by the experts in the preceding 10 years.
  1. Produce all raw data, notes, calculations, and other materials created or relied upon by the experts in forming their opinions.
  1. State whether each expert has conducted any tests, experiments, or studies related to this case, and if so, provide details and results.
  1. Identify any assumptions provided to the experts by defense counsel or others in forming their opinions.
  1. Produce any correspondence between defense counsel and the experts related to this case.

These interrogatories and requests aim to obtain comprehensive information about the defense experts, their qualifications, opinions, and the bases for those opinions. This information can be crucial for preparing to depose and cross-examine the experts, as well as potentially challenging their testimony.

Fact Witness Information

  1. Identify all fact witnesses known to you or your attorneys who have any knowledge or information relevant to the claims or defenses in this case.
  1. For each witness identified in response to Interrogatory #92, provide:

a. Their full name, current address, and telephone number.
b. Their relationship to the parties involved in this case.
c. A detailed summary of the specific knowledge or information they possess relevant to this case.
d. The date(s) and method(s) by which they acquired this knowledge or information.

  1. Of the witnesses identified in response to Interrogatory #1, list those whom you intend to call as witnesses at trial or any hearing in this matter.
  1. For each witness you intend to call, as identified in response to Interrogatory #93, state:

a. The subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify.
b. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.
c. A summary of the grounds for each opinion the witness will offer.

  1. Identify all persons who have given statements, whether written or oral, regarding any of the events or issues involved in this litigation.
  1. For each person identified in response to Interrogatory #96, state:

a. The date the statement was given.
b. Whether the statement was written or oral.
c. The name and address of the person who took the statement.
d. The current location of the statement if written, or any existing transcription if oral.

  1. Identify all persons you believe may have knowledge or information relevant to this case but whom you do not intend to call as witnesses, and briefly describe the nature of their knowledge or information.
  1. If you become aware of any additional fact witnesses after serving your responses to these interrogatories, describe your efforts to supplement these responses in accordance with the applicable rules of civil procedure.

Catch-All Question

  1. Please state any other facts, information, or circumstances not already addressed in the previous interrogatories that are relevant to the claims or defenses in this case.

Drafting Tips

  • Be specific and tailor questions to the law enforcement context.
  • Focus on obtaining factual information rather than legal conclusions.
  • Consider including definitions for key terms and instructions to ensure clarity.
  • Limit the number of subparts to each interrogatory to comply with any applicable rules.

Remember to review and comply with all applicable state, local rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when drafting and serving interrogatories. These sample questions should be adapted and expanded based on the specific facts of your case and any additional relevant issues.