The Honor able John R. Adams, United St ates District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0645n.06 No. 08-6212 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT SAMUEL K. JONES, SR. , Plaintif f-Appellant , v. M EM P HIS L IG HT, G AS, A N D WA TER DI VI SION , Defendant-

Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M T HE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEFORE: NORRIS and COLE, Circuit Jud ges; AD AMS, Distric t Judge. * COLE, Circ uit Jud ge. Samue l K . Jon e s, Sr . b ro ug ht t his su it a g a ins t Me mph is L ig ht, Ga s,
an d W at er Di v i s i o n (“ M L GW ”) fo r fa i l u re t o p ro m o t e hi m t o t wo p o s i t i o n s d u e t o h i s ra ce an d

age in violation of Title VI I of t he Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ( “Title VI I ”), the Ag e Discr imination in Em ploy ment Act, 2 9 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“A DEA” ), and the Tenne ssee Human Rig hts Act, Tenn. Code A nn. § 4-21 -1 0 1 et seq. (“ THRA”) . The district cour t gr anted summary judgme nt for ML GW. For the f ollowing r easons, we AF F IRM
. I. BACKG ROUND A. Jo ne s’ s wor k his to r y a nd qua lific at ion sNo. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

Citatio ns to “ R__ ” re fe r t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt do c ke t sh e e t, t o w hic h th e pa rt ie s r e fe r i n 1 li e uo f a r e c o r d o na p p e a l o r jo in t a p p e n d ix. 2 J ones is an Af

rica n-Amer ican man who works for ML GW as a we lder a

nd cre w l eade r in the I ndustrial Gas de partment. He was born in 1947, and at the time he applied for the positions at issue, he wa s fifty -s ev en y ear s old. J ones has a high sc hool diploma and cer tificates f rom completing
se ve ra l c la sse s a t tr a de sc ho ols
. He ha s be e n c on tin uo us ly e mpl oy e d b y

ML GW f or a pp ro xima te ly thirty -two y ear s, since 1977. Jones had sever al neg ative perf ormanc e incidents ear ly in his care er at ML GW
. I n 1982, he wa s removed f rom a Maintena

nce Ma chinist apprentice ship prog ram be c a us e he “ re qu ir e [d] di re c t su pe rv isi on fo r pr a c tic a lly e ve ry a ssi g nme nt; d[id ] not have the a

bil ity to apply basic princ iples of machine work; [required] excessive t ime to complete a job; ma[ de] error s wh ic h r e su lt[e d] in

wa ste of mate ri a l and

la bo r c os ts; and

[de mo ns tr ate d an ] ina

bil ity to r e ta in standard ope ratingproce dures a nd prac tices.” ( R. 36-8 Ex . 7. ) In 1985, J ones fa iled multipl e other 1 exams in differ ent ty

pes of we lding a

nd was re moved from a

n appre nticeship as a F abric ator Welder. O th e r w is e , Jo n e s h a s p r o g r e s s e d w it h in th e r an k s a t M L G W w it h o u t an y neg ative employ me n t e v e n ts
. I n 1 9 8 9 , h e w a s p r o mo te d f r o m “ me te r in s ta ll e r ” to “ w e ld e r in s ta ll e r ” v iaa “line

- o f

- p r o g r e s s io n ” p r o mo ti o n , f o r w h ic h h e b e c a me e li g ib le b y p a s s in g a w e ld in g c e rti f

ic ation test. Since approximately 1998, he has be en employ ed in the Commercia l (also ca lled “Industrial”) depar tmen t of the lar g er G as Ope ration depa rtment. I n approximately 2000, J ones attaine d journey man status in ga s operations by underg oing tr aining outside of ML GW. I n September 2003, J ones bec ame a

“cr ew lea der” in the I ndustrial Gas department. P rior to applying f or the positions at issue, he suc cessf

ully comp l et ed a training prog ram throug h ML GW’s “Assessment Center ,”No. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

3 which provide s course s to prepar e employ ees f or supervisory positions. J ones has also worke d “out of cla ss” as a fore man ( i.e. he te mpo ra ri ly pe rf or me d f or e man’ s d

uti e s w ith ou t be ingpr omo te d to that position). B. MLG W’s prom otion procedure When ML GW has an open po s i t i on, it posts an internal notice listing the position and the require d qualifications, and ML GW employ ees may apply for the position by submitt ing bids to the human re source s (“HR” ) depa rtment. When the bid-period closes, an HR repr esentative revie ws the bid s and se le c ts c and idate s to be int e rv ie we d. Th e HR re pr e se ntativ e e ns ur e s th a t on ly a pp lic ants who meet the minimum qualifications ar e intervie wed, a nd if the applica

nt pool contains many

who
me e t th e mi n im

u m qu a li f ic a ti o n s , th e H R r e p r e s e n tati v e ma y f u rth e r n ar r o w th e p o o l to o b tain a g roup of the best qualified candidates. After the interview ees a

re se lected, the y

are interviewe d by
a “ hir ingmana g e r” wh o h a s the a uth or ity to make the hir ingde c isi on . T he hir ingmana g e r i s o nly informed of

those ca ndidates who a

re se lected a s interviewe es, not all ca ndidates who a

pplied. C. Sup ervisor , Met er Installation I n 2004, J ones submitted a bi d for the position of Supervisor, Me ter Installation, a position wi t h i nt h e G as Fi t t er s d e p a r t m e n t
. Ac co rd i n g t o th e j o b p o s t i n g, t h e j o b d u t i es i n cl u d edt ra i n i n g, direc ting, a

nd supervising employ ees in t h e i nstallation and maintenanc e of dome stic and
commerc ial g as m eter s, inspecting customers’ piping, gas equipment, and buil dings for complianc e with various code s, and coor dinating w ith other depa rt m ents and outside ag encie s. The posting lis te d th e qu a lif

ic a tio ns fo r t

he job a s:

- “4 -6 y ea rs j ourney man level e x perie nce in the installation/maintenanc e ofNo. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

4 domestic/commerc ial g as meter s/metering equipment.”

- “[m] ust successf

ully complete Super

visor Assessment Center.”

- a drive r’s lice nse.

- dr ugsc re e nin g wi th n e g a tiv e re su lts
.

- a hig h school diploma or GED. (R. 39-13 Ex. 11.) A separ ate document in the rec ord provides a fuller descr iption of the job, list ing such re sponsibili ties as: handling discipline, promotions, tr a n s f e r s , gr ie v a n c es, and othe r mana g eria l functions; schedulingthe work of subordinates; re commending use of ne w mater ial or equipment
an d r e v i s i o n s t o M L G W ’ s e qu i p m e n ts t an d ar d s ; p r e p ar i n g an d v e r i f yi n g b u d g e t ar

y, i n v e n t o r

y, perf ormanc e appr aisal, and othe r ty pes of r eports; beingresponsible f o r s afe work pr actice s; and staying a brea st of ML GW policies and deve lopments in the field. Nine ML GW emplo y ees applied for the Supervisor position; seven wer e Cauc asian a nd tw o— Jone s and

Ric ke y L e wi s— we re Af ri c an- Am eri can. Th e HR re pr e se ntativ e c ha

rg e d w ith selec ting inter

viewee s out of this g roup was an Afr ican- Americ an woman na med Adria

nne Vinson. She selec ted three interviewe es, all of whom we re w hite: J oseph Noe l, Keith Ubel, and Robe rt T u rn er . S h e h adn o tm et J o n es at t h at t i m e, an d s h e st at ed i n an af fi d av i t t h at J o n es ’s ra ce an d age
wer e not a f

actor in her decision. She stated that she c hose the thre e intervie wee s beca use they wer e “the most qualified f

or the position, based upon their e ducation and e x perie nce.” (R. 36-4 ¶ 6.) The intervie wee who was e ventually chosen f or the job, R obert Turner, was fifty -five at the time—about t wo y ear s y oung er tha n J ones. Turne r beg an wor king at ML GW in 1968 and has worke d in the Gas Fitters department since 1971. I n 1998, he was promoted t o fore man in the GasNo. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

5 Fitters de partment. At the time he applied for the Supervisor p osition, Turner wa s serving out of class as the S upervisor. The hiring manag er who made the decision to promote Turne r wa s L eonar d Phill ips, the manag er of

Gas Ope rations and the pe rson to wh o m T u rner would be re porting . An internal memora

ndum memorializi ng the de ci s i on, appar ently ref lecting Phill ips’s rea sons for choosing Turner , notes t h at Turner wa s the most ex perie nced c andidate, ha ving “ perf

ormed
succe ssfully

as a le ader

in [ the] area

[for the] past 6 y ear s.” (R. 36-7 Ex. 7.) D. F orem an, Gas F itter s After Turner was promoted to Super

visor, Meter I nstallation, his prior position of fore man in the Gas F itters depar

tment beca

me ava ilable. J ones applied, but a g ain he wa s not selec ted for an interview. The descr iption of the fore man position is nearly identical to that of

the Supervisor, Mete r I nstallation, positi on, the main diffe renc e beingthat the S upervisor has authority to selec t, transfe r,
and pr omo te e mpl oye e s. Th e qu a lif ic a tio ns fo r t

he fo re man p os iti on

we re :

- “2 - 4 y ear s journey man level e x perie nce as a Gas Fitter ” (e mphasis added)
.

- c o mp l e t i o no f

A s s e s s m e n tC e n t e r

E x e r c i s e s , Le v e l II.

- fa mil iari ty wi th p ipi ngc od e re qu ir e me nts
.

- a b i l i t y t o m an a g e , o r g an i z e , an d c o m m u n i c a t e e f

f e c t i v e l y.

- a hig h school diploma or GED.

- a drive r’s lice nse. (R. 39-6.) Se ve n e mpl oy e e s a

pp lie d f or the fo re man pos iti on ; four we re Ca uc a sia n a nd thr e e —Jon e s, L ewis, and L awr ence Davis—we re A frica n-Amer ican. As w ith the Superintendent position, VinsonNo. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

6 selec ted the applicants to rec eive interviews. S he sele cted Rodg er Joy ner ( 42 y ear s old, Caucasian) , Aubre y King (40 y ear s old, Cauc asian), and Davis (73 y ear s old, Africa n-Amer ican) . Vinson stated in a dec laration that she based this dec ision on the education and experienc e of the applicants. She note d in th e d e c la

r a ti o n th a t a ll thr e e h a d w o r k e d in th e G a s F itte r s d e p artm e n t an d wer e fa miliar wi th i ts d ay -t o- da

y op e ratio ns . F or

re a so ns no t e xpla ine d in the re c or d, on ly Ki ng wa s a c tua lly interviewe d for the position. Phill ips, Turner, a nd Vinson interviewe d King . Phill ips asked Turne r to decide whether

to pr omote King , and Turner decide d to do so. Acc ording to a n internal re cord, Turner ’s d ec i s i o n was ba sed on King ’s “knowle dg e, lea dership and w illing[ness] to learn a nd adjust.” (R. 36-6 Ex. 1.) At the time he applied f

or the foreman positi on, King was wor king out of

class as f orema n in the Gas Fitters depar

tment on a rotating basis. I n addition to a high school diploma, he had thre e y ear s of colle g e e d

u c a ti o n . H e b e g an w o r

k in g a t M L G W in 1 9 9 1 an d b e g an w o r k in g in th e Gas Fitters de partment a s an apprentice in 1998 and as a gas fitter in 2002. He a lso served on the Gas F itt e rs a pp re nti c e sh ip a

nd sa fe ty c omm itt e e s. E. District

court dec ision J ones file d s u i t claimi ng that he wa s denied both promotions beca use of his ag e and r ace . ML GW moved for summary judgme nt, claiming that its promoti on decisions wer e based solely on the a pp lic ants ’ q

ua lif ic a tio ns . ML GW a lso argue d th a t Jone s c ou ld n ot e sta bli sha pr ima fa c ie c a se of ag e discrimination with respe ct to the Supervisor position because T urner , who re ceive d the promotion, was less than two y ear s y oung er than J ones. J ones conce ded the latter, but with re spect to h is o the r c la ims he argue d that ML GW’ s r e a so ns fo r d e nyinghim the pr omo tio ns we re pr e te xtua l.No. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

7 The district cour

t gr anted summary j u d gm en t t o ML GW. The court f ound that J ones had
es t ab l i s h eda p ri m a fa ci e ca s e o f ra ce d i s cr i m i n at i o n as t o t h e S u p erv i s o r p o s i t i o nan d

ra ce an d age discrimination a s to the fore man position. Thoug h J ones had never worke d in the Ga s Fi t t ers depar tment, the court found him qua lified for the position bec ause he “spent the bulk of his care er in the I ndustrial Gas De partment, whe re he perf ormed many

of the same routine tasks employ ees of the Ga s F itter s U nit

pe rf or me d .
. . [an d] ha d b e e n e ntr us te d to se rv e in a

le a de rs hip c a

pa c ity a s a
cre w leade r in the I ndustrial Gas divi sion.” (R. 58 at 9.) The court then f ound that ML GW provided le g iti mate , n on -d isc ri min a tor y re a so ns fo r a

wa rd ingthe po sit ion s to Turn e r and Ki ng ba se d o n th e ir qualifications and that J ones had of fer ed no evide nce that these re asons wer e pre text s for ag e or r ace discrimination. J ones appe aled. II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review We reviewa d i s t ri ct court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt de novo. See W hite v. Bax ter Healthcare Corp. , 533 F.3d 381, 389 (6 t h Cir. 2008). Summary judgme nt is proper “ if the pleading s, the discover

y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show t h at there is no g enuine issue a s to a

ny materia l f

act and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w.” Fe d. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
. A genuine issue of m ater ial fac t exi sts when there are “disputes over fac ts that might aff ect the outcome of the suit under the g overninglaw.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U. S. 2 42 , 2 48 (1 98 6) . “ Whe re the re c or d tak e n as a wh ole c ou ld not le a d a ra tio na l trie r of fa c t to find for the no n -m o v i n g p arty , there is no ge nuine issue for tr ial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Cor

p. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quotation omit ted).No. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

8 At the summa

ry jud g me nt s ta g e , th e mov ing pa rt y be ars the ini tia l burd e n o f i de nti fy ingpa rt s of the re cord that demon s t ra t e the abse nce of a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. Celotex Corp. v. Cat re tt , 4 77 U. S. 3 17 , 3 23 (1 98 6)
. I f that pa rt y se e ks summa

ry jud g me nt on an is su e fo r whic h it does not bea

r the burde n of proof

at trial, it may meet it s initial burden by showing that “ther e is an absenc e of e vidence to support the nonmoving pa rty ’s ca se.” Id . at 325. To def ea t a motion for summary judgme nt once the moving party has carrie d this burden, the non-moving pa rty “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphy sical doubt as to the mater ial fac ts.” Ma tsu sh ita , 47 5 U .S. a t 58 6. Th e no n- movi ng part y may no t r e st u

po n me re a lle g a tio ns , b ut m us t se t f or th specific fac ts showing that ther e is a g enuine issue f or trial, id .; that is, the no n- mov ing pa rt y mus t point to “evide nce on which the jury could rea sonably find” in its favor, see Ande rson , 477 U.S. at 2 5 2
. W h en considering a motion for summary judgme nt, the district court (a nd this Court, under de novo re view) must dra w all infer ence s in the light m ost favora ble to the non-moving party
. See Ma tsu sh ita , 475 U.S. at 587. B. Discrim inatory fail ure-t o-prom ote Title VII an d the ADEAforbid employ ers f rom deny ing pr omotions based on rac e or a g e. Se e W hit e , 533 F.3d at 390; Burzynski v. Cohe n , 264 F .3 d 611 , 621 -2 2 (6t h Ci r. 20 01 ). We a

pp ly the same ana ly sis to dis c ri min a tio n cla ims br ou g ht u nd e r t he TH RA a s to c la ims br ou g ht u nd e r T itl e VI I and the AD EA. See Sybrandt v. Home D epot, U.S.A., Inc

. , 560 F.3d 553, 557 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (T itl e VI I ); Bende r v. He cht’s De p’t Stores , 4 55 F .3 d 6 12 , 6 27 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) (A DE A) . B e c a us e J ones o ff er s only circ umstantial, as opposed to direc t, evidence of discrimination, the Mc Do nn e ll Do ug las burden- shifting framew ork applies to his claims. See M cDonne ll Douglas Cor

p. v. Gre en ,No. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

9 41 1 U .S. 79 2, 80 2 ( 19 73 ); An tho ny v . B TR A uto . S

e ali ng Sy s. , 339 F.3d 506, 514-15 (6th C ir. 2003). To establish a prima f

acie failure -to-promote cas e, J o nes must show (1) he is a member of a protec ted class; (2) he applied f or and w as qualified for the promotion; (3) he wa s considere d for a nd denied the pr omotion; and (4) another employ ee of simil ar qualifications who was not a member of the protec ted class r ece ived the promotion. See G rizzell v. City of Columbus Div. of Police , 461 F.3d 711, 719 (6th Cir. 2006). I f Jones establishes a prima fac ie case , a pre sumption of unlawful discrimination arises, a nd the burde n of produc tion shifts t o ML GW to articulate some leg itimate, nondiscriminatory rea son for its ac tion. See St. M

ary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hick

s , 50 9 U. S. 5 02 , 5 06 -0 7; Gr izz e ll , 461 F.3d at 719- 20. I f ML GW meets this burden, the presumption drops from the c ase, a nd J ones is aff

orded a n opportunity

to prove that the rea s on offe red is pre text ual. Se e St. Ma ry ’s Ho no r Ct r. , 509 U.S. at 50 8. He may do so by

sh ow ingthat th e re a so n ( 1) ha s n o b a sis in f a c t; ( 2) did

no t a c tua lly

mot ivate the de c isi on

no t to pr omo te him ; or

(3 ) w a s ins uf

fi c ie nt t o w arr ant t

he de c isi on

no t to pr omo te him
. Gr izz e ll , 4 61 F .3 d at 72 0. Th e ult imate burd e n o f p e rs ua din g the tr ie r o f f a c t r e ma ins wi th Jon e s,
so to d e fe a t a motio n for summa ry jud g me nt, he “ mus t ide nti fy e vid e nc e fr om wh ic h a r e a so na ble jury could conc lude that the prof fer ed re ason is actua lly

a pre text for unlaw ful discrimination.” See Blair v. Henry

Filters, Inc. , 505 F.3d 517, 524 ( 6th Cir. 2007). C. Evid ence of prete xt ML GW d oes n ot c ha lle ng e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing that Jone s e sta

bli sh e d a pr ima fa c ie
case of ra ce disc rimination with respe ct t o both positions and ag e discrimination with respe ct to the fore man position. Nor does Jones c halleng e the district c ourt’s finding that ML GW met its burdenNo. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

10 of prof fer ing le g itimate, nondiscriminatory rea sons for it s decisions (that the applicants chosen w ere better qua lified). The parties’ dispute is whether J ones m et hi s burden on pr etext; t hat is, whether he int ro du c e d e vid e nc e fr om whic h a re a so na ble jur y c ou ld c on c lud e that ML GW’ s clai m that it
awa rded the promotions to the best-qualified a pplicants was a

prete x t for discrimination. 1. Supervisor, Me ter Installation J ones off ers thre e ar g uments for why ML GW ’s claim that Turne r wa s the more qua lified candidate was a

prete x t for ra cial discrimination. First, he points to an email exchang e betwe en HR
re pr e se ntativ e Vi ns on

and Samue l B a lla

rd , w ho ov e rs aw the As se ssm e nt Ce nte r, that he c la ims is
e vid e nc e tha

t ML GW did no t a c tua lly fo llo w i ts a sse rt e d c and idate -s e le c tio n c ri te ri a . In a n e ma il dated se vera l day s after J ones and Tur ner submitted their bids for the Supervisor position, Vinson wrote to B allard to a sk whether “Robert Turner .
. . is elig ible to go ba ck throug h the [Assessment Center c ourse f

o r training as a Super

visor].” (R. 44-3 Ex . 1.) B allard r esponded that Turner had alre ady succe ssfully

completed the c ourse in 2002. J ones ar g ues that Vinson’s ema il shows she was consideringTurner

for the position eve n though she b elieved he was lac king one of the listed
re qu ir e me nts —c omple tio n o f t he Sup e rv iso ry

As se ssm e nt p ro g ra

m—a nd argue s th a t th is
un de rm ine s ML GW’ s c la im that it wi ll n ot c on sid e r a

pp lic ants wh o la c k th e min imum r e qu ir e me nts for a n open position. ML GW responds that the Assessment Center prog ram mere ly provides “sof

t skill s,” such a s leade rship and proble m-solving, a nd that a ca

ndidate who o t h er wi s e meets the c riteria f or a supervisory

position can be sent to t h e Assessment Center to unde rg o the re quired c ourse be fore
a ssumin g the po sit ion . In addi ti on , ML GW p oin ts o ut t hat th e job po sti ng , w hic h s tate s “ mus tNo. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

11 succe ssfully

complete Super

visor As s essment Center,” does not specif y that the prog ram must be completed before the applica nt is considere d for the positi on. J ones has of fer ed no evide nce c alling ML GW’s expl anation into question. Fur thermore , while it does not completely undermine Jones’s point (since Vinson’s e mail stil l shows that she was c onsidering Turner even thoug h she t houg ht he had not completed the Assessment C enter prog ram), the fac t that Turner had, in fa ct, completed the pr og ra m, w e a ke ns Jone s’ s c la im. Jone s h a s no t ra ise d a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t on thi s p oin t. J ones’s sec ond argument reg ardingprete x t is that he was as experience d and qualifie d as Turn e r fo r the Sup e rv iso r p os iti on . Jon e s’ s argume nt, wh ic h is larg e ly ba se d o n th e le ng th o f t ime he ha s b e e n e mp lo y e d a t M L G W, is u np e r s u a s iv e b e c a u s e T u r n e r h a s b e e n e mp lo y ed ther e sig nif i c an t l y l o n g e r th anJo n e s . I nr e s p o n s e t o M L G W ’ s a s s e rt i o nt h a ti tp r e f e r r e d t o p r omo te someone with experience in the Gas F itters depar tment beca

use the Supervisor position is located in that departm e n t, Jo n e s ar g u e s th a t t h e I n d u s tr ia l G a s s e c ti o n , in

w h ic h h e is e mp lo y e d , has “sig nificant ove rlap” with the Gas Fitters depar tment in terms of work skil ls, such that experience in his depar

tment provided equally valuable prepa ration for the Supervisor position. Even ac cepting Jone s’ s ar g ume nt as tr

ue , it do e s n ot r e nd e r Jon e s mo re qualified than Tur ner. See Bende r , 455 F.3d
a t 62 7 ( “ [I ]n th e c a se in whic h th e re is l itt le or no oth e r p ro bativ e e vi den ce of dis c ri min a tio n, to survive summary

judgme nt the reje cted a

pplicant’s quali f

ic a ti o n s mu st be so signific antly better tha n the succ essful applica

nt’s qualifications that no rea sonable employ er would have c hosen the latter
a pp lic ant o ve r t

he fo rm e r. ” ). I n ad dit ion , J on e s has no t ra ise d a g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t a s to the truthfulness of ML GW’s claimed prefe renc e to promote an employ ee with experience in the Gas F itt e rs de pa

rtme nt.No. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

J ones states, without citation, that Ubel a nd Noel had only

been e mploy ed at ML GW for 2 t e nan d e l e v e ny e ar s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a tt h e t i m e o f t h e p r o m o t i o nd e c i s i o n . ( J o n e s B r . 9
. ) It appea rs that he is re fer

ring to the leng th of time they have w orked a s g as fitters, since the two men’s bids for the promotion show that they had bee n employ ed at ML GW for about eig hteen and twenty -three y ear s, respe ctively . (R. 36-7.) 12 Third, J one s ar g u e s th a t h e w a s mo r e e xp e r ie n c e d an d mo r e qu a li f

ie d th anth e o th e r

two applicants sele cted to intervie w for the position, Ubel and N oel (both Cauca sian), who ha d only been workingat ML GW for ten or e leven y ea rs . M L GW states that Ubel a nd Noel had “ signific ant 2 experience i n t h e Gas Fitters de partment in which the Supervisor-Me ter Installation is si tuated,” while J ones had ne ver w orked in that de partment. (ML GW B r. 10.) Ag ain, J ones offe rs no evidenc e castingdoubt on this prefer ence . Nor has J ones established that his qualifications wer e so super ior to t ho se of Ub e l ( e mpl oy e e fo r e ig hte e n y ears, g a s f itt e r a pp re nti c e /g a s f

itt e r f or tw e lve y e ars , fore man i n Gas Fitters depar tment since 2003) and Noe l (employ ee f or twenty -three y ear s, ten y ear s as g as fitter a

pprentice /ga s fitter, three y ea rs as “g as re g ulator re p” in Pressure Reg ulation de pa rtme nt, tw o y e ars a s tr a ini ngre pr e se ntativ e in G a s O pe ratio ns Mana g e r’ s dep artme nt, and ou tof-c lass fore man in the Gas Fitters depar tment) that the dec ision to i nterviewthem rathe r than Jones is evidence of pre text
. See, e .g. , Bende r , 455 F.3d at 627. There fore , we a ffirm the district court’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt on the claims relating to the Super visor position. 3. Fo re ma n, Ga s F

itt e rs As me nti on e d a

bo ve , this po si tio n b e c a me a va ila ble wh e n T ur

ne r w a s p ro mot e d to Supervisor, and V inson selected thr ee a pplicants to be interview ed for it: Rodg er Joy

ner ( 42 y ear s old, Caucasian) , Aubre y King (40 y ear s old, Caucasian) , and L awr ence Davis (73 y ear s old, Africa n-No. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

13 Amer ic an )
. O n ly

K in g , w h o r e c e iv e d

th e p r o mo ti o n , w a s in te r v ie w e d , an d

th e r e c o r d

c ontains almost no information abou t t h e q u ali fications of the other two intervie wee s. J ones asse rts that ML GW’ s expla

natio n that Kingwa s mo re qu a lif ie d th an Jon e s b a se d o n h is “ kn ow le dg e , le a de rs hip and willing[ness] to learn and a djust” was a pr etext for ag e and r ace discrimination. J ones’s main a

rg ument is that he was more experience d and knowledg eable than King
. Since he ca n point to “no other probative evidenc e of discrimination,” he must show that his qualifications
wer e so sig nificantly

better tha

n King ’s that a jury

could conc lude that “n o rea sonable e mploy er would hav e ch osen” K ing ove r him. See Bende r , 455 F.3d at 627. J ones make s no more than a conclusory

attempt to do so. King w as working out of class as for eman in the Ga s Fitters de partment on a rotating ba sis—this is signi fi ca n t s i n ce the position at iss ue was fore man in the Gas F itters depar tment. King be g an at ML GW in 1991 and in the Gas F itters depar tment in 1998, first as a g as fitters appr entice, the n as a g as fitter sta rt i n g i n 2 0 0 2 . He a lso served on the Gas F itters appre nticeship and saf

ety committees. Whil e he had much less ex perie nce tha n J ones over all, he had much more e x perie nce in the Gas Fitters depar tment. I n the absence of

any other proba

tive evidenc e of dis c ri min a tio n, Jone s h a s f a ile d t o add uce evide nc e that hi s q ua lif ic a tio ns we re so su

pe ri or to King ’s that no reasonable employ er would have selecte d King for the promotion, so he cannot de feat summary judgme nt. Se eid
. J ones’s other

arguments on the question of prete x t a re also unava iling. He claims that King was unqua lified bec ause he had not under g one the Assessment Center prog ram be fore being interviewe d, but as explained above ML GW pr ovided a re asonable explanation for this, which J ones ha s n ot c a lle d in to q

ue sti on . Jon e s a lso sp e c ulate s that ML GW s tr a te g ic a lly se le c te d D a vis (w ho isNo. 08-6212

Jones v . Mem

phis Li ght, Gas, and W

ater

14 Afric an-A merica

n) as a n interviewe e because Davis was unqualified and ML GW knew it would not have to hire him. W ithout supporting evidenc e, this argument d o es not raise a g enuine issue of
ma te ri a l f a c t. F ina lly , Jon e s a sse rt s th a t he wa s p a id at a Gr a de 12 sa lary , w hil e the c re w l e a de rs in his de pa rtme nt who we re Ca

uc a sia n w e re pa id at a

Gr a de 13 sa lary . H e of fe rs no e vid e nc e in
su p p o rt of this claim other than a one-se ntence asser

tion in his decla

ration. Ther e is no evidenc e
a bo ut h owmany

oth e r em plo y e e s re c e ive d the hig he r pay g ra de or wh e the r t he y we re se nio r t o Jon e s, and no documentation of any kind. This arg ument also does not speak to the question of whethe r J ones wa s more qualifie d than King . I n sum, Jones has not me t his burden on pre text with respec t to the fore man position. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM th e g r an t o f s u mm ar y ju d g me n t t o M L G W.