T he H onor abl e Eugene E. Si l er , J r . , Seni orU ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge for * t he Si xt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay24,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
KAT HY S ANT ANA,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 05- 1111 CI TY AND COU NTY OF DE NVER,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

FO R TH E D i s t r i c t of C ol or ado ( D . C . N O . 03- C V - 00774) D avi d L . W or s t el l ( R obertW . K i ens now s ki , J r . , w i th hi m on the br i efs ) of W o rste ll & K ien sn o w sk i, D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , fo r P lain tiff-A p p e llan t. R o b ert A . W o lf (M ind i L . W ri g h t, w ith h im o n the b ri ef), D en v er C ityA tt o rne y ’s O ffi ce, D enver , C ol or ado, forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee. B efo re B RI S CO E , M c CO NNELL , and S I LER , C i rcui tJudg es. * S I LER , C i r cui tJ udge. P lai n ti ff K athyS an tana ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm entdi s m i s s i ng hergenderdi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s agai ns tt he C i tyand- 2-

C ount yof D enver , C ol or ado ( t he “Ci ty ”) . Sant ana, a s er geantw i th the D enver Sher i ff’ s D epart m ent , cl ai m s di s par at e tr eatm entand di s par at e i m pact d is c ri m in a tio n u n d e r T itle V II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000e- 2, ets eq. , s t at e l aw br eac h of contr actforfai l ur e t o pr om ot e, and err orby t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti n i t s d i s c o v e r yru l i n g s . F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we R EV ER SE and RE M AND w ith re sp e c t to S a n tan a ’s d isp a ra te im p a c t cla im agai ns tt he C i ty . W e AF F I RM s um m aryj udgm entfort he C i tyon al l other c la im s . I. Fac t s and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound S antana beg an w orki ng for the D env er Sheri ff’s D epart m ent i n 1 97 7 as a deputys her i ff. She w as pr om ot ed t o the r ank of s er geanti n 1992. I n 2000, s he appl i ed fora pr om ot i on t o t he pos i t i on of ca pt ai n. A s partof the appl i cat i on p ro c e s s , s h e c o m p le te d th e re q u ir e d s k ills a s s e s s m e n t e x a m in a tio n , s c o ri n g a 9 3 .3 o u t o f a p o ss ib le 1 0 0 . T h e C a re e r S e rv ice A u th o rityth e n c e rtifie d h e r, alo n g w ith ot hert op s cor i ng candi dat es , t o be i nt ervi ew ed byt he Sher i ff’ s D epart m ent . T he i n t e r v i e w c o n s i s t e d o f t h r e e q u e s t i o n s a n d c a n d i d a t e s we r e p r o v i d e d a s mu c h t i me a s th e yn e e d e d to f

u lly re s p o n d . S a n ta n a a c k n o w le d g e d th a t s h e d id n o t p e rfo rm w e ll d u ri n g h e r i n te rv ie w . S h e e x p lai n ed that sh e fo u n d itd ifficu lt“to g o in f ron t of three o f [ h er] s upervi s or s ” and fel ti tw as “veryhar d t o pr om ot e [he r s el f] ” i n an i nt ervi ew s et t i ng. A ccor di ng t o t he i nt ervi ew er s , Sant ana appear ed t o be uncomfor t abl e,- 3-

beca m e emot i onal , and di d notans w erthe ques t i ons compl et el y . W hen as ked by th e p a n e lis ts if

s h e w a s u p s e t, S a n ta n a a d m itte d th a t s h e w a s . A tt he conc l us i on of the i nt ervi ew pr oces s , the pane l i s t s eac h devel oped a l i s tof thei rt op s i x orei ghtcandi dat es i n des cendi ng r ank or der . Sant ana w as not i ncl uded as a t op candi dat e on anyi nt ervi ew er ’ s l i s t . T he r anki ngs w er e l at er co m p il ed into o n e li st, an d there af ter, ac co rdin g to the C ity , ind ividu als w ere pr om ot ed off

t he mast erl i s ti n des cendi ng r ank or der . O vera tw o- y earper i od, t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m entpr om ot ed a t ot al of t en s er geant s t o the r ank of c apt ai n, i ncl udi ng ei ghtm en and tw o w om en. T he s econd femal e r ece i ved herpr om ot i on t o capt ai n onl yaft erthe fi r s tfemal e r es i gned. S an tana all eg es th at sh e a n d o ther w o m en n o t sel ec ted fo r pro m o ti o n w ere m or e qual i fi ed and mor e expe r i ence d than the mal es ul t i m at el ychos en. She arg u es th at th e C ity ’s pro ffere d n o n -discrim inato ryrea so n fo r no t pro m o ti n g h er – p o o r i n te rv ie w p e rfo rm a n c e – w a s m e re ly a p re te x t fo r g e n d e r d is c ri m in a tio n . Fur t herm or e, s he cont ends t hatt he pr om ot i on pr oces s w as bi as ed aga i ns tw om en, a n d , th e re fo re , re s u lte d in a d is p a ra te im p a c t o n fe m a le c a n d id a te s . A ppl y i ng t he fa m i l i arbur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k of McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792, 802- 04 ( 1973) , the di s tr i ctcourtfi r s tfound that Sant ana di d s t at e a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of ge nderdi s cr i m i nat i on beca us e s he demonstr at ed thats he w as qual i fi ed forthe r ank of c apt ai n. She had r ece i ved out s t andi ng r ecomm endat i ons and pas tper form ance eval uat i ons , s he had hi gher- 4-

scores on several obj ect i ve p rom oti on cri t eri a t han som e of the prom oted m al es, and s he had e xt ens i ve expe r i ence as a s upervi s or . T he courtnextdet erm i ned that th e C ityh a d se t fo rth leg iti m a te, n o n -d isc rim in a to ryre a so n s fo r h irin g m a le candi dat es i ns t ead of

Sant ana, pr i m ar i l ythatSant ana pe r form ed poor l yi n her i nt ervi ew . Fi nal l y , i tconcl uded thatSant ana di d notes t abl i s h a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tas t o w hethert he pr offe r ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons w er e a pr et extfor genderdi s cr i m i nat i on. A s t o Sant ana’ s di s par at e i m pactcl ai m , the di s tr i ctcour tfi r s tdeni ed s um m aryj udgm entbutl at erdi s m i s s ed the cl ai m forl ack of s t andi ng. I tr eas oned that u n d er C oe v. Yel l ow Fr eightSys . , Inc. , 6 4 6 F . 2 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ), Sant ana ha s s t andi ng t o br i ng herdi s par at e i m pactcl ai m onl yi f s he w as the “vi ct i m of di s cr i m i nat i on byt he gene r al pr act i ce w hi ch al l egedl yr es ul t ed i n a di s cr i m i nat or y i m pact on a pr ot ect ed gr oup. ” B eca us e the courthad di s m i s s ed Sant ana’ s di s par at e tr eatm entcl ai m , i tconcl uded thats he coul d nots how t hats he w as a vi ct i m of a di s cr i m i nat or ypr om ot i on pr oces s t hatw as adver s el yi m pact i ng w om en i n t he Sher i ff’ s D epart m ent . T hus , t he courthel d thatSant ana ha s not s uffe r ed an i nj ur y - i n- fac tand does nothave s t andi ng t o advanc e the r emai ni ng d i s p a r a t e i mp a c tc l a i m. T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton Sant ana’ s br eac h of contr actcl ai m . I tfound thatt he D enverC hart erpr ovi s i ons and the ac company i ng C ar eerSer vi ces R ul es govern herempl oym entw i th the C i tyas an i m pl i ed- 5-

empl oym entcontr act . T hes e pr ovi s i ons r equi r e thatal l appoi nt m ent s or pr om ot i ons of empl oy ees be made s ol el yupon m er i tand abi l i tyt o per form the w or k and thr ough a pr oces s i ncl udi ng a s ki l l s as s es s m entexami nat i on and i nt ervi ew s . T heyal s o pr ohi bi tdi s cr i m i nat i on on t he bas i s of r ace , col or , cr eed, n ati o n al origin , sex , o r po li ti ca l affil iat ion s. H o w ev er, be ca u se th e d istri ct co u rt concl uded thatt he C i t ydi d notpart i ci pat e i n di s cr i m i nat or ytr eatm enti n fai l i ng to p rom o te S an tana , the C ityd id n o t brea ch the e m p loym en t con tr ac t. T h e c o u rt al s o not ed that“[a ] di s par at e i m pactcl ai m does notr es ul ti n a br eac h of contr act bas ed on per s onnel pol i ci es and pr ocedur es w her e thos e pr ocedur es w er e fol l ow ed y etpr om ot i on di s par i t i es nonethel es s occurr ed. ” I I . D i s cus s i on W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o the C i tyde n o v o , co n stru in g th e fa c ts in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to S a n tan a a n d re so lv in g a ll re a s o n a b le in fe re n c e s in h e r fa v o r. Kendr i ck v . P ens ke Tr ans p. Ser vs . , Inc. , 220 F . 3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). S u m m aryjud g m en t i s ap p rop ri ate o n lyif th ere i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand the C i tyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a m a tte r o f

la w . F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c ). A . D i s par at e Tre at m e nt N ei t herpart ydi s put es t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatSant ana ha s es t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of ge nderdi s cr i m i nat i on. T her efor e, t he onl yi s s ue- 6-

o n a p p e a l is w h e th e r S a n ta n a ra is e s a g e n u in e fa c tu a l d is p u te c o n c e rn in g p re te x t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t s h e d id n o t. I n a Ti t l e V I I di s par at e tr eatm entcl ai m , once a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e has been es t abl i s hed, t he bur den then s hi ft s t o the defendantt o art i cul at e a l egi t i m at e, nond is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n fo r n o t p ro m o tin g th e p la in tiff. Texas D ep’ tof C m t y. A f f ai rs v. B ur di ne , 4 5 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 2 5 4 (1 9 8 1 ). A f ter th e d e fe n d a n t h a s o ffe re d its non- di s cr i m i nat or yexpl anat i on, the pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i s r ebutt ed and the bur den of p ro v in g p re te x t s h if

ts b a c k to th e p la in tiff. Id . at255. A plai nti ff m ayest abli sh pret ext byshow i ng “such w eakn esses , i m pl aus i bi l i t i es , i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , orcontr adi ct i ons i n the empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons fori t s act i on thata r eas onabl e fa ct fi nder coul d r at i onal l yfi nd t hem unw or thyof cr edenc e and he nce i nferthatthe empl oy erdi d notactfort he as s ert ed non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas ons . ” Morgan v. Hi l t i, Inc. , 108 F. 3d 1319, 1323 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng O ls on v. G en. E l ec. A s tr os pace , 1 0 1 F . 3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 1 -52 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 )). H o w ev er, “m ere co njecture t hat[an] empl oy er ’ s expl anat i on i s a pr et extfori nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on i s an i ns uffi ci entbas i s fordeni al of s um m aryj udgm ent . ” B r ans on v. P r i ce Ri verC oal C o. , 8 5 3 F .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T he C i t ys ubm i t s t hatSant ana w as notpr om ot ed bec aus e of he rpoor interview p erfo rm an ce . T h e p an eli sts r ec all ed that S an tana h ad b ee n v ery e m o t i o n a l a n d s e e m e d u n a b l e t o e n d u r e th e s tr e s s o f th e i n t e r v i e w . C o n s e q u e n t l y,- 7-

th e yq u e stio n e d w h e th e r sh e w o u ld b e a b le to w ith sta n d th e stre ss a ss o c iate d w ith a c a p ta in ’s d u tie s a n d re s p o n s ib iliti e s . S a n tan a c o u n ter s w ith th e fo llo w in g tw o a rg u m e n ts a s to w h yw e sh o u ld r ej ectt he C i t y ’ s j us t i fi cat i on and i nferpr et ext : ( 1) the evi dence s how s thats he w as s i gni fi cant l ym or e qual i fi ed forpr om ot i on t o capt ai n than one of the men w h o w a s p ro m o te d , a n d (2 ) t h e p ro m o tio n a l p ro c e s s w a s v e ry su bje c tiv e . W e w i l l dr aw an i nfer ence of pr et extw her e “the fa ct s as s ur e us thatthe pl ai nt i ff i s bet t erqual i fi ed than the othercandi dat es forthe pos i t i on. ” Jones v. B arnh art , 349 F. 3d 1260, 1267 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng R e a v . Ma rtin Ma rie tta C or p. , 29 F. 3d 1450, 1457- 58 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) ) . W e have caut i oned that“pr et ext ca n n o t be s h o w n sim p lyb yiden ti fy ing m ino r differe n ce s b etw ee n p lai n ti ff ’s qual i fi cat i ons and thos e of s ucce s s ful appl i cant s , ” butonl ybydemonstr at i ng an

“ o v e rw h e lm in g ” m e ri t d is p a ri ty. B ul l i ngt on v. Uni t ed Ai rLi nes , Inc. , 186 F. 3d 1 3 0 1 , 1 3 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Nat ’ lR . R . P as s enger C or p. v. Morgan , 536 U . S. 101 ( 2002) . M or eover , w e ac know l edge thati ti s not ou r r ole t o “act as a s up er per sonn el dep artm ent that s econ d g uesses em ploy ers ’ bus i nes s j udgm ent s . ” Si m m s v. O klahom a ex r elD ep’ tof MentalHeal th & Su bst an ce A bu se Servs. , 1 6 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). H e re , S a n tan a c o m p a re s h e rse lf to Ja m e s L e a h y , w h o w a s p ro m o ted to capt ai n i n t he R el i ef Fac t orM anage m entSy s t em (“ R FM S”) uni t , and cl ai m s that s he w as s i gni fi cant l ym or e qual i fi ed forthi s pos i t i on. She poi nt s t o herhi gher- 8-

s ki l l s as s es s m entexam sc or e and he rgr eat erexper i ence , both as a s er geantand s peci fi cal l yas a s upervi s ori n t he s peci al i zed RF M S offi ce. H ow ever , Sant ana d o e s n o t a rg u e th a t h e r i n te rv ie w p e rfo rm a n c e w a s s tr o n g e r t h a n L e a h y ’s . In ste a d , sh e c o n tra sts h e r e x c e p tio n a l an n u a l re v iew s to L e a h y ’s a lleg e d ly s u b s ta n d a rd w o rk a s a c a p ta in in th e R F M S u n it. Sant ana’ s evi dence fai l s t o es t abl i s h an “ove rw hel m i ng” di s par i tybetw een herqual i fi cat i ons and thos e of Leahy . B oth candi dat es r ece i ved as s es s m ent s cor es hi gh enough t o be pl ace d i n a pool of ca ndi dat es qual i fi ed fora pr om ot i on t o capt ai n. O nce a ppl i cant s r eac hed the i nt ervi ew pr oces s , the pane l i s t s w er e fr ee t o s el ectanyof the ca ndi dat es i n the gr oup w i thoutr egar d t o s cor e. T her efor e, S a n ta n a ’s h ig h e r s c o re a lo n e d o e s n o t d e m o n s tr a te p re te x t. See J ones v. B arnh art , 349 F. 3d 1260, 1267 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( concl udi ng thata pr om ot i onal ca n d idate’s h igh er a sses sm en t- p an el sco re w as n o t dispo sit ive o f p retex t w h ere the s co res se rve d as a n init ial sep ara ti o n o f q u ali fied fro m u n q u ali fied ap p li ca n ts) . Sant ana’ s ar gum ental s o over l ooks ourpr act i ce of as s es s i ng pr et extby e x a m in in g “ th e fa c ts a s th e ya p p e a r to th e p e rso n m a k in g th e d e c isio n to [ p ro m o te t he] pl ai nt i ff. ” Kendr i ck , 220 F. 3d at1231. Sant ana c oncede s thatthe annua l r evi ew s w er e notcons i der ed i n t he pr om ot i on pr oces s . Fur therm or e, evi dence of Le a h y ’ s p e r fo r ma n c e a s a c a p t a i n c o u l d n o th a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d a tth e t i me pr om ot i onal deci s i ons w er e made. W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tthat“[m]a ny of M s . Sant ana’ s pr offe r ed ar gum ent s ar e s i m pl yhers ubj ect i ve opi ni on thats he- 9-

w as bet t erqual i fi ed and the mal e appl i cant s w er e l es s qual i fi ed. ” S e e S i mms , 165 F. 3d at1329- 30 ( an empl oy ee’ s opi ni on abouthi s orherqual i fi cat i ons does not g iv e ri s e to a m a te ri a l fa c tu a l d is p u te ). H o w e v e r, e v id e n c e o f p re te x t m a yin c lu d e th e u s e o f s u bje c tiv e c ri te ri a . S i mms , 165 F. 3d at1328. A l t hough “[s ] ubj ect i ve cons i der at i ons ar e notunl aw ful pers e[, ] . . . [o] bvi ous l ys ubj ect i ve dec i s i on m aki ng pr ovi des an opportuni tyfor unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. ” B auerv. B ai lar , 6 4 7 F .2 d 1 0 3 7 , 1 0 4 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). Sant ana a r gues t hatt he pr om ot i on pr oces s ati s s ue her e pr ovi ded j us ts uch an o u tlet fo r d isc rim in a tio n . S h e c laim s th e p a n e lists a p p lied n o se lec tio n c riter ia “againstw hich cand i dates can b e m easured, ” res ult i ng i n a “sel ect i on process bas ed upon much m or e s ubj ect i ve and a m orphous s t andar ds , know n and fathom abl e onl yt o t he dec i s i on m aker . ” W hi l e ther e i s cert ai nl ya l evel of s ubj ect i vi t yi n anyi nt ervi ew - bas ed s el ect i on pr oces s , Sant ana pr ovi des no evi dence t hatt he i nt ervi ew er s us ed thei rdi s cr et i on as a means forunl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. T he pane l i s t s as ked eve ryappl i cantthe s ame t hr ee que s t i ons and t hen r anked the ca ndi dat es bas ed on thei rr es pons es . Sant ana ne verdi s cr edi t s t he C i t y ’ s expl anat i on t hats he w as notr anked hi ghl y , and ther efor e nots el ect ed, b e c a u se sh e d id n o t an sw e r th e q u e stio n s c o m p lete ly . T h e in ter v iew e rs th o u g h t, and Sant ana a gr eed, t hats he di d notpr es enther s el f as a s tr ong candi dat e for ca p tai n . In su m , S an tana h as fail ed to “ra ise a g en u ine d o u b t abo u t D efen d an t’ s m ot i vat i on, ” EE O Cv. Hor iz on/CMS Heal thcar e C or p. , 2 2 0 F .3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 2 0 0 (1 0 th- 10-

C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), o r pro d u ce ev iden ce ref u ti n g o r sho w ing that the S h eriff ’s D e p a rtm e n t’s s tate d re a so n s fo r n o t p ro m o tin g h e r w e re im p lau sib le, in c o n sis ten t, o r u n w o rt h yo f

c re d e n c e . T h u s , s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e r. B . D i s parat e I m pact W e turn nex tt o S antana’s assert i on t hat the p rom oti on al i nterview process h ad a d ispa rate im p ac t on fe m ale c an d idates. A fter rev iew ing the d istri ct co u rt ’s s ta n d in g a n a lysis , w e fin d th a t S a n ta n a ’s c la im w a s im p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d . A s th e trial c o u rt c o rre c tlyo b se rv e d , co n stitu tio n a l sta n d in g re q u ire m e n ts app l yw i t h eq ual force t o T i t l e V II dis cri m i nati on cl ai m s. S antana m ust demonstr at e her“per s onal s t ake i n the out come of t he ca s e” bys how i ng that “[s he] had bee n deni ed an a vai l abl e pos i t i on forw hi ch [s he] w as qual i fi ed. ” C oe v . Ye llo w Fr e ig h t, 64 6 F . 2d at45 1. T he record reveal s that Santana has d on e j ust t hat . I n C oe , t he pl ai nt i ff w as unabl e t o poi ntt o an ava i l abl e pos i t i on forw hi ch h e w a s q u a lifie d . Id . H er e, Sant ana undi s put edl ym ett he mi ni m um qual i fi cat i ons nece s s aryt o be cons i der ed forpr om ot i on t o the open pos i t i on of ca pt ai n. She as s er t s t hats he w as t he vi ct i m of di s cr i m i nat i on beca us e the i nt ervi ew s el ect i on p ro c e ss re su lted in a d isp a ra te im p a c t o n fe m a le c a n d id a tes . S h e th e re fo re m e e ts t he s t andi ng r equi r ement s as s etfor th i n C oe . T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s co n tr aryco n clus ion im p li es th at w h ere a p lai n ti ff ’s d ispa rate tr ea tm en t cl aim is dism issed , sh e lac k s stan d ing to p roc ee d u n d er a di s par at e i m pactt heory . Such a hol di ng confl at es t he tw o di s t i nctt heor i es of- 11-

d isc rim in a tio n . A c laim o f d isp a ra te im p a c t, as o p p o se d to d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t, d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a s h o w in g o f d is c ri m in a to ry m o tiv e o r i n te n t. Id . at450; Mel endezv. Il l i nois B el lTel . C o. , 79 F. 3d 661, 669- 70 ( 7th C i r . 1996) (c o n c lu d in g th a t a fa ilu re to p ro v e d isc rim in a to ryin ten t as to a d isp a ra te t r eatm entcl ai m does notpr ecl ude s ucce s s on a di s par at e i m pactcl ai m ) . For Sant ana t o have s t andi ng t o pr ocee d w i th a di s par at e i m pactcl ai m , s he nee d not d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e in te rv ie w e rs ra te d h e r p o o rl yb e c a u s e o f h e r g e n d e r. T h e re fo re , the d istric t co u rt e rre d b yd ism iss in g S a n tan a ’s d isp a ra te im p a c t cla im fo r l a c k o f

s ta n d in g . C . St at e L aw B reac h of C ont ract W e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f S a n tan a ’s s tate law c laim forbr eac h of contr act . Sant ana a r gues that“[p] r oof of i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on i s notan el ementt o pr ove a br eac h of contr actcl ai m . ” H ow ever , beca us e s he fa il ed to p rov e inten ti o n al discrim ination , sh e c an n o t sho w that the C ity ’s pr om ot i on pr oces s w as notbas ed s ol el yupon m er i tand the abi l i tyt o per form t he w or k. Sant ana ha s notpr es ent ed evi dence t hatt he C i tybr eac hed anyof the p ro v is io n s o f

th e D e n v e r C h a rt e r a n d th e a c c o m p a n y in g C a re e r S e rv ic e s R u le s . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e r. D . T es t i m ony of

D r. L y nn S anders A f ter th e c lo se o f

d isc o v e ry , S a n tan a re q u e ste d to re -o p e n d isc o v e ryin o rd e r to tak e th e d e p o sitio n o f D r. L yn n S a n d e rs, a n o fficia l at th e D e n v e r C o u n ty- 12-

Ja il w h o a lleg e d lyw itn e ss e d d isc rim in a to ryc o n d u c t in 1 9 9 6 . A c c o rd in g to S a n tan a , D r. S a n d e rs’ d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yw o u ld sh o w p re tex t an d th a t all p ro m o tio n s w e re a s h a m . W e re v ie w d is c o v e ry ru lin g s fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Sm i th v. Uni t ed Stat es , 83 4 F . 2d 16 6, 16 9 (10th C i r. 19 87 ). S antana did not di scl ose D r. S and ers ’ p u rpo rt ed test im o n ythro u g h R u le 26 d iscl o su re o r w ri tt en resp o n ses to d isco v ery r eques t s . T he di s t r i ctcour tuphel d the magi s tr at e j udge’ s rul i ng, fi ndi ng that Sant ana di d notexer ci s e due di l i gence i n r egar d t o thi s w i tnes s . D r . Sander s w as avai l abl e t o Sant ana be for e di s coverycl os ed, y et , w i thoutgood caus e, Sant ana fai l ed t o di s cl os e heras a w i t nes s unt i l aft erthe di s coverydeadl i ne. T he di s tr i ct c o u rt a c te d w ith in th e b o u n d s o f d is c re tio n in e n fo rc in g th e d is c o v e ry d e a d lin e . E . D i s cover y Sant ana’ s fi nal ar gum enti s t hatt he magi s tr at e j udge’ s Sept ember2004 or derexcl udi ng anyw i t nes s and exhi bi t s notl i s t ed i n the pr e- tr i al or derw as an abus e of di s cr et i on. D efe ndant s m oved t o s tr i ke 36 exhi bi t s fr om t he fi nal pr etr i al or dert hathad neve rbeen di s cl os ed bySant ana, orw er e di s cl os ed af t er th e c lo se o f

d isc o v e ry . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e a g re e d a n d e x c lu d e d a n ye x h ib its t hatw er e notl i s t ed ordes i gnat ed i n a t i m el yfas hi on. T he di s tr i ctcourtaff i r m ed t hatdeci s i on. Sant ana r es ponds t hatt he courtcoul d noteffect i vel ycons i der e x h ib its th a t w e re n e v e r su b m itt e d to th e c o u rt fo r re v iew . S h e f u rth e r a ss e rts t hatt her e w as no harm i n admi t t i ng the document s beca us e the tr i al dat e had be endel ay ed. W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcourt . I ti s gener al l ynotan abus e of

d is c re tio n fo r a c o u rt to e x c lu d e e v id e n c e b a s e d u p o n fa ilu re to tim e ly d e s ig n a te . See ge ner al l

y Wor m v. A m er i can C yanam i d C o. , 5 F. 3d 744, 749 ( 4th C i r . 1993) ( fi ndi ng no abus e of di s cr et i on and uphol di ng the deni al of m ot i on foraddi t i onal di s coverybeca us e ther e had be en ade quat e t i m e fordi s coveryand the r eques t i ng p a rtyh a d n o t m a d e a tim e lyre q u e st); Turnage v. G en. E l ec. C o. , 953 F. 2d 206, 208- 09 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) ( fi ndi ng no abus e of di s cr et i on and uphol di ng the deni al of a d isc o v e rym o tio n b e c a u se re q u e stin g p a rtyh a d fa iled to m a k e th e re q u e st u n til tr ial w as im m inen t and the d isco v eryd ea d li n e w as im p en d ing ). I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s t at ed above , w e REVERSE the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s u mm a r yj u d g me n tt o t h e Ci t yo n S a n t a n a ’ s c l a i m o f d i s p a r a t e i mp a c t , a n d we RE M AND forfur t herpr ocee di ngs on thatcl ai m . I n al l otherr es pect s , t he di s t r i ct cou rt ’s j ud gm ent i s AFF I RM ED . W e GR ANT Sant ana’ s m ot i on t o s uppl ement t he r ecor d.