Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the Readjustment Counseling Service). Ms. Thompson specifically notes that Mr. Luper “did not inform her that [the phone call] was an interview for the vacancy announcement or schedule the interview in advance as was regional practice.” Pl.’s Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 8. “Along with disparate qualifications of the applicants, procedural irregularities in the selection process also may demonstrate that the employer’s justification for a hiring or promotion decision was pretex-tual.” Kilby-Robb v. Duncan, 77 F.Supp.3d 164, 174 (D.D.C.2015) (citing Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344, 1355 (D.C.Cir.2012)). For instance, summary judgment may be inappropriate when contemporaneous documentation supporting the employer’s justification is missing. See, e.g., Hamilton, 666 F.3d at 1355-56 (<HOLDING>); Browne v. Donovan, 12 F.Supp.3d 145, 153 
 Holding statements: (A) holding potential prejudice caused by equating reasonable doubt with a substantial doubt mitigated by providing an alternate definition of reasonable doubt as a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act (B) holding that an ij need not first identify the particular pieces of missing relevant evidence and show that this evidence was reasonably available to the applicant when he or she is not otherwise credible (C) holding that missing documentation of an interviewing panels deliberations coupled with a missing page of interview notes could lead a reasonable jury to doubt the employers interviewbased explanation (D) holding that a jury could accept witnesss explanation as reasonable (E) holding spoliation instruction was warranted in medical malpractice action where two pieces of evidence initially collected by hospital were missing
Output (English): holding potential prejudice caused by equating reasonable doubt with a substantial doubt mitigated by providing an alternate definition of reasonable doubt as a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act