Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a grade 13. Pl.’s Ex. N, Kress Dep. 14:1-6. And Allen says that Fiegel, Brockhouse, and he at one time all worked as Team Leaders at a grade 13 level before they earned additional tasks, titles, and promotions. Pl.’s Ex. B, Investigation Report, Statement of Shelton Allen at 152. Plaintiff cannot show that similarly qualified employees who were not members of plaintiffs protected class were promoted when plaintiffs request was denied, and hence cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The Court “may not ‘second-guess an employer’s personnel decision absent demonstrably discriminatory motive.’ ” Fischbach v. Dist. of Columbia Dep’t of Corrs., 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quoting Milton v. Weinberger, 696 F.2d 94, 100 (D.C.Cir.1982)); see also Taylor, 350 F.3d at 1295 (<HOLDING>); Bolden v. Ashcroft, 2007 WL 2727221, *4 
 Holding statements: (A) holding monell claim fails as a matter of law unless a city employees conduct violates one of the plaintiffs federal rights (B) holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine (C) holding that because plaintiff falls far short of showing that the employer promoted other employees of similar qualifications bundy 641 f2d at 951 the district court properly held her claim fails as a matter of law (D) holding that the plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies and it does not matter that the plaintiff was using state law as the vehicle to press her assertion (E) holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea
Output (English): holding that the plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies and it does not matter that the plaintiff was using state law as the vehicle to press her assertion