2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-31-2010 

# J ohn W es t v . C ity of N ewark P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4668

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J o hn W e s t v . C ity of N ewark " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1600. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1600NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### No. 08- 4668 VUL CA N P I ONE E RS OF NE W J E RS E Y; GAR Y HOL M E S ; J OHN D. WES T ; BR I AN KI RK L AND; KE NNE T H M . DOUGL AS ; S I DNE Y E . M AR BL E ; J ONAT HAN WHEE L E R; DOR I AN HE RR E L L ; CA L VI N HUNT ; NAT HAN J OHNS ON; M US T AF A AB DUL - HAQQ; KE NNE T H WAT S ON; AB NAT HY AL F ONS O M AS ON; S T ANL E Y M CN E I L ; AR NUM W AP P L E S ; T HADDE OUS KE NNE DY; WALT ON G RA Y ; A RT H U R G A RR ETT ; TY RO N E J O H N SO N ; CH RI STO PH ER D A N I ELS; S YL VE S T E R L E E , S R. ; KAR RE E N HE RR I L L ; E RI C L E E ; DAR RE N B E NJ AM I N;

J OH N D OES 1 - 2 0 ; J AC QU ELI NE C . J ON ES UNI T E D C I VI L S E RV ANT S AS S OC I AT I ON

(I n te rv e n o r i n D .C .) v. T H E C I T Y O F N E W A R K ; ST A N L E Y J . K O SSU P, For m erFi r e D i r ect orforthe C i tyof N ew ark F ir e D ep artm en t; E D D IE D U N H A M , F ir e D ir ec tor fo r th e C ityo f N ew ark F ir e De p a r t me n t ; T HE S T AT E OF NE W J E RS E Y DE P AR T M E NT OF P E RS ONNE L AND M E RI T S YS T E M BO AR D; L OM AC K PLA I N TI FFS /I N TER V EN O R D EFEN D A N TS J o h n D . W e s t; J a c q u e lin e C . J o n e s , A p p e llan ts APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 02- cv- 05802) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sus an D . W i gent on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 9, 2010-2- B efor e: M cK E E , B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 31, 2010)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge I n 2002, tw enty - fourfi r efi ght er s and the V ul can Pi oneer s of N ew J er s eybr ought c l a i ms a l l e g i n g r a c e a n d g e n d e rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n th e wo r k p l a c e . I n th i s a p p e a l , th e t wo rem ainin g p lai n ti ff

s, Jo h n W est an d Jac q u eli n e Jo n es, ch all en g e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s S e p tem b e r 9 , 2 0 0 8 o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n ts, th e C ity o f N e w a rk , S tan ley J. K o ss u p , an d E d w a rd D u n h a m (c o llec tiv e ly , “th e C ity ” ). W e w ill a f f i r m. BA CKGROUND J ohn W es t , an A fr i can A m er i can w ho j oi ned the N ew ark Fi r e D epart m enti n 1978 and r et i r ed i n 2003, cl ai m s thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o m i s tr eatm entand deni ed a pr om ot i on beca us e of hi s vocal oppos i t i on t o r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on w i thi n the Fi r e D epart m ent . Pr i or t o hi s r et i r ement , W es tw or ked as a uni form ed fi r e pr event i on s peci al i s t . I n 2002, su p e rv isin g f

ire p re v e n tio n sp e c ialist p o sitio n s b e c a m e a v a ilab le, a n d W e st f o rm a lly p l a c e d h i s n a me “ o n th e i n t e r e s t e d l i s to f e l i g i b l e s . ” ( Ap p e l l a n t s ’ Br . a t1 7 . ) He c l a i ms thatthe Fi r e D i r ect or , E dw ar d D unham, “r epr es ent ed t o [hi m ] thatthe pos i t i on w as now r es erved forci vi l i ans and ther efor e W es tw oul d need t o r et i r e and appl yforthe pos i t i onW e st, in h is d e p o sitio n , d e sc rib e d h is a n g e r a t th e th re e w o m e n w h o w e re p ro m o ted : 1 [I ] tw as genderdi s cr i m i nat i on t o m e and w hatnot , y ou m i ghtas w el l s ay b e c a u se a n d w h a tn o t, all th re e in d iv id u a ls h a p p e n e d to b e f e m a le a n d a ll thr ee happened t o be mi nor i t i es . So i tm ade the ci t i es and w hatnotpos i t i on l ook w i th doubl e s t ar s i n t hr ee pl ace s . W e’ r e notonl yand w hatnot el evat i ng m i nor i t i es , w e ar e el evat i ng w om en and w hatnoti nt o pos i t i ons th a t tr a d itio n a lly th e yh a v e n o t h e ld . (A p p . a t 1 2 8 .) -3- as a ci vi l i an. ” (Id . ) I n J ul y2003, W es tappl i ed forr et i r ement , t o be ef fec t i ve D ece m ber 31 , 20 03 . In January20 06 , the C i tyapp oint ed thr ee ci vil i ans t o the supervi si ng speci al i st pos i t i ons ; how ever , W es tw as notamong t hem. H e w as l at err emoved fr om the l i s tatt he 1 C ity ’s req u est. W est ap p ea led th e d ec isi o n to the M eritS y stem B o ard , an d o n F eb rua ry 28, 2008, the B oar d i s s ued i t s “fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve ac t i on, ” fi ndi ng thatW es tw as not coer ced i nt o r et i r i ng and thatther e w as “a s uffi ci entbas i s t o r emove [W es t ’ s ] name fr om the s u b ject eli g ible li st. ” (S u p p . A p p . at 49 -51 . ) In th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t, W e s t a lle g e d th e f a ilu re to p ro m o te h im to c a p ta in , a cl ai m thatw as di s m i s s ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n A ugus t2004. H e l at erar gued t o the D istric t C o u rt, an d n o w a rg u e s o n a p p e a l, th a t h e sh o u ld h a v e b e e n p ro m o ted to su p e rv isin g f

ire p re v e n tio n sp e c ialist. T h e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w a s n e v e r a m e n d e d to i ncl ude thi s cl ai m , how ever , and the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thati t“i s notpartof thi s cas e. ” (A p p . at 16 ). Jacque l i ne Jon es, an A fri can A m eri can w om an w ho beg an h er s ervi ce as a fi r efi ght erw i th t he N ew ark Fi r e D epart m enti n 1981 and r et i r ed i n 2006, cl ai m s thatr ace-4-

a n d g e n d e r d isc rim in a tio n re su lted in h e r b e in g d e n ied p ro m o tio n a l o p p o rtu n iti e s w ith in the D epart m ent and t hat s he w as subj ect ed to i nsult s and o ther sl i gh t s becau se she w as a w om an. J ones had bee n pr om ot ed t o C apt ai n i n 1989, and cl ai m s thatther eaf t ers he w as deni ed fi el d pos i t i on as s i gnm ent s and l eftt o “l i nger [] i n admi ni s tr at i ve and of fi ce po si t i on s. ” A s a r esul t , she w as conti nu ou sl yi neli gibl e for careeradv ancem ent because of herl ack of

fi el d exper i ence . ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at21. ) She al s o cl ai m s thatw hi l e s he w as r equi r ed t o obt ai n a part i cul arcert i fi cat i on i n or dert o s i tforthe batt al i on chi ef exami nat i on, C auca s i an, m al e capt ai ns w er e perm i t t ed t o t ake the exa m i nat i on w i thout th e s a m e c e rt if

ic a tio n . J o n e s d id ta k e , b u t f a ile d , th e b a tta lio n c h ie f e x a m in a tio n in 2 0 0 1 . O n S ep tem b er 9 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e C ity ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n a ll c la im s b ro u g h t b yW e s t a n d J o n e s , i . e. Co u n t1 ( a c l a i m u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1983) ; C ount2 ( a cl ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1981; and C ount3 ( a cl ai m underthe N ew Je rse yL a w A g a in st D isc rim in a tio n (“ N JL A D ” ), N .J. S tat. A n n . § 1 0 :5 -1 2 (a ). A p p e llan ts t i m el yappea l ed. J URI S DI CTI ON & S TANDA RD O F REVI EW W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. Sm i th v. Johns on & J ohns on , 593 F. 3d 280, 284 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w her e ther e i s no genui ne is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t a n d th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . W e vi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng-5-

p a r ty. D ee v. B orou gh of D un m ore , 5 4 9 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). DI S CU S S I ON A . W e s t ’ s D e f

i c i e nt C ompl ai nt W e st a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f in d in g th a t h e f

a iled to a d e q u a tely al l ege i n the amended compl ai ntthathe w as di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tw hen the C i tydi d not p ro m o te h im to s u p e rv is in g f ir e p re v e n tio n s p e c ia lis t. R u le 8 (a ) a rticu late s th e re q u ire m e n ts o f a c iv il co m p lain t: a s h o rt a n d p lain s t at ementthats et s outthe j ur i s di ct i onal gr ounds , the cl ai m orcl ai m s s how i ng thatthe p lea d e r is e n tit led to re lief , an d a d e m a n d f

o r re lief. F e d . R . C iv . P . 8 . A lth o u g h R u le 8( e) i ns truct s thatpl eadi ngs “mustbe cons trued s o as t o do j us t i ce, ” the amended com plai nt her e m akes no m enti on atal l of W est ’s pu rs uitof the supervi si ng speci al i st pos t . Q ui t e t o t he contr ary , i ts peci fi cal l ys et s out( tw i ce) thathe and other s “w er e deni ed the opportuni tyt o be pr om ot ed t o C a p ta in d u e to th e ir ra c e .” (A p p . at 2 8 , 3 3 (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). ) N onethel es s , W es tar gues thathi s fai l ur e t o be pr om ot ed t o the s upervi s i ng s peci al i s tpos i t i on w as s uffi ci ent l ypl ed i n the amended compl ai nt . W e di s agr ee. T he am end ed co m plai nt w as fi l ed in M arch 20 03 , w hich w as before W es tl earned i n J ul yof th e s a me y e a rth a th e wo u l d n o tb e a p p o i n t e d t o a s u p e r v i s i n g s p e c i a l i s tp o s i t i o n . He nevers oughtl eave t o amend t he compl ai ntt o i ncl ude thatpart i cul arfai l ur e t o pr om ot e, w i th the r esul tthat, as t o thatcl ai m , “t he fa ctual det ai l i n [the] com plai nt i s so-6-

u n d e v e lo p e d th a t itd o e s n o t p ro v id e . . . d e f e n d a n t[ s] th e typ e o f

n o tice o f

c laim w h ich is cont empl at ed byR ul e 8. ” P hi l l i ps v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 2 (3d C ir . 2008) . A nd, of cour s e, the numer ous uns ubs t ant i at ed al l egat i ons of var i ous form s of m is tr e a tm e n t s p ri n k le d th ro u g h o u t th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t a n d b e f o re u s f a re n o b e tte r. S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rl yg ra n te d . B . C ount 1: 42 U . S. C . § 1983 J ones cl ai m s that( 1) the C i tyw as “del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r ent ” t o di s cr i m i nat i on w i thi n the Fi r e D epart m ent , and that( 2) thi s i ndi ffe r ence caus ed heri nj ur i es . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt d is a g re e d . 1. Muni ci

pal L iabilit y U nder§ 1983 I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thata muni ci pal i tyi s l i abl e under§ 1983 onl yw hen the p la in tif f s u f f e rs a c o n s titu tio n a l d e p ri v a tio n th a t r e s u lts f ro m a n o f

f ic ia l c u s to m o r p o lic y . Mo n e l lv . De

p ’ to f So c . S e r v s . o

f N. Y. , 4 3 6 U . S . 6 5 8 , 6 9 1 (19 7 8 ); B r ow n v. C i t y of P i t t s bur gh , 586 F. 3d 264, 292 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . “[A ] pl ai nt i ff s how s thata pol i cyexi s t ed ‘w h e n a d e c isio n m a k e r p o ss e ss [ in g ] f in a l au th o rityto e sta b lish m u n icip a l p o licyw ith r es pectt o t he ac t i on’ i s s ues an off i ci al pr ocl amat i on, pol i cy , oredi ct . ” W at s on v. A bi ngt on Tw

p. , 478 F. 3d 144, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng B i el evi czv. D ubi non , 915 F. 2d 8 4 5 , 8 5 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 )). O n th e o th e r h a n d , a c u sto m is id e n tifie d “ b ysh o w in g th a t a given co urse of con du ct , al tho ug h n ot s pecifi cal l yend orsed or aut ho ri zed b yl aw , i s so w el l - s ett l ed and pe r m anentas vi r tual l yt o cons t i tut e l aw . ” B i el evi cz , 9 1 5 F .3 d a t 8 5 0 .-7-

M o re o v e r, “a p lain tiff

m u st s h o w th a t th e m u n icip a l ac tio n w a s ta k e n w ith th e re q u isite degr ee of

cul pabi l i tyand mustdemonstr at e a di r ectcaus al l i nk betw een the muni ci pal act i on and the depr i vat i on of fe der al r i ght s . ” B d. of C ount y C om m ’ rs of

B r yan C ount

y v. Br o wn , 5 2 0 U .S . 3 9 7 , 4 0 4 (1 9 9 7 ). 2. Jones H

as N ot Set For th Su

f f i cient E vidence to Meet

HerB urde n J ones bas es hercl ai m “on D efe ndant s ’ fai l ur e t o actaff i r m at i vel y , i n that D efe ndant s knew thatdi s cr i m i nat i on pol i ci es and pr ocedur es w er e ei theri nadequa t e or nonexi s t ent , and s t i l l fai l ed t o i m pl ementorenfor ce a dequat e s ex and r ace di s cr i m i nat i on pol i ci es . ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at47. ) T he Fi r e D epart m enthad i n pl ace a 1988 s exual harass m ent pol i cythat cont ai ned a proced ure for addressi ng gri evan ces. Jones cl ai m s, h o w e v e r, t h a t it w a s n e ith e r a d h e re d to n o r e n f o rc e d w ith re s p e c t to th re e is s u e s . F ir st, reg ard ing h er a ll eg ati o n co n ce rnin g the lac k o f a restroo m fo r w o m en , there i s no evi dence thatthi s s i tuat i on w as a muni ci pal pol i cys o obvi ous l yi n vi ol at i on of her c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts th a t o n e c o u ld re a so n a b lyf in d th a t o f

f icia ls w e re d e lib e ra tely in d if f e re n t to th e n e e d f

o r a c tio n . S e e N

a ta le v . C a m d e n C o u n ty C o rr . Fa c ili ty , 318 F. 3d 5 7 5 , 5 8 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). F o rm e r N e w a rk F ire D e p a rtm e n t D ire c to r K o ss u p tes tifie d in hi s depos i t i on thatw hi l e the fi r ehous es di d nothave s epar at e fa ci l i t i es , he di d “have al l of the lo ck s ch an g ed o n the b athro o m d o o rs so [Jo n es] c o u ld h av e p ri v ac y , n o m att er w h ere sh e w en t. ” (A p p . at 17 4 . ) Ind ee d , Jo n es c o n ce d es th at at on e p o int, w h en the lo ck s w ere i m pr oper l yi ns t al l ed, “the chi ef c ame and found out , and he or der ed them t o change t he-8-

l ocks . ” (I

d. at 55 0 . ) J ones ’ s cl ai m s of di s cr i m i nat i on r egar di ng herfai l ur e t o be pr om ot ed t o batt al i on chi ef a r e s i m i l ar l yfl aw ed. T her e i s no evi dence of a c us t om orpol i cym ot i vat ed by di s cr i m i nat i on thatcaus ed hert o be deni ed the pr om ot i on; r ather , thatdeci s i on w as the re su lt o f a f a ili n g e x a m in a tio n sc o re . A lth o u g h sh e c o m p lain s th a t sh e w a s a ss ig n e d to non- fi el d pos i t i ons and, ther efor e, coul d notacqui r e the fi el d exper i ence deemed necessaryfor the b at t al i on chief posi t i on , there i s no ev i den ce t hat s he w as gi ven tho se as s i gnm ent s fordi s cr i m i nat ory , r atherthan per s onnel , r eas ons . M or eover , s he w as eventual l yas s i gned t o a fi el d pos i t i on, and obt ai ned s uffi ci entfi el d cr edi tt o s i tforthe batt al i on chi ef e xami nat i on, w hi ch s he fa i l ed. F inally , Jo n es’s c lai m s o f se x u al ha rassm en t are n o t suc h that a re aso n ab le j u ry co u ld f ind that theyresu lt ed fro m an o ff ici al cu stom o r po li cy , o r th at C ityo ff ici als w ere i ndi ffe r entt o t he nee d t o t ake a ct i on. T he gende r - bas ed hos t i l i tyal l eged he r e i s not al l eged i n t he amended compl ai ntout s i de the cont extof the r es tr oom and pr om ot i on i s s ues . I n anyevent , J ones t es t i fi ed thats he di d notcompl ai n t o hers uper i or s about o f f -c o lo r c o m m e n ts b e c a u se “ o n c e y o u sta rt tak in g th in g s o u t [ o f th e f ire h o u se ], itsta rts gett i ng w or s e . . . . ” (I

d. at552. ) N ordi d s he ava i l her s el f of the af fi r m at i ve ac t i on o f f ic e s th a t w e re e v e n tu a lly e s ta b lis h e d w ith in th e F ir e D e p a rt m e n t a n d th e C ity. (I d. at 5 5 1 , 5 5 5 . ) W h en sh e d id co m p lai n , sh e a ll eg es o n lythat the re sp o n ses o f h er su p eriors w e re u n h e lp f

u l. S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rl yg ra n te d a s to C o u n t 1 .-9-

C . C ount 2: 42 U . S. C . § 1981 Jo n es a rgu es th at sh e e stab li sh ed a p ri m a f ac ie ca se o f d iscri m ination as to the F ir e D epart m ent ’ s fai l ur e t o pr om ot e hert o batt al i on chi ef a nd, thus , the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed in g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n h e r § 1 9 8 1 c la im . W e appl ythe fa m i l i arfr amew or k s etouti n McD onnel lD ouglas v. G r een , 411 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 (1 9 7 3 ). T h e p lain tiff c a rrie s th e in iti a l b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g a p rim a f

a c ie c a se , an d a lth o u g h “ th e p rim a f a c ie el ement s of a di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m varydependi ng on the part i cul arfac t s of the ca s e, ” St or ey v . B ur ns I nt ’ lSec. Ser vs . , 390 F. 3d 760, 764 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), t h e p la in tif

f ’s ta s k g e n e ra lly is t o “ ra is e [ ] a n in f e re n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n ,” Swi e rk i e wi czv . So r e ma N. A. , 534 U . S. 506, 510 ( 2002) . T hatr equi r es s how i ng ( 1) that s he bel ongs t o a pr ot ect ed cl as s , ( 2) thats he w as qual i fi ed forthe pos i t i on ati s s ue, ( 3) thats he w as s ubj ectt o an adve r s e empl oym entact i on, and ( 4) thatthe empl oy er cont i nued t o s eek outs i m i l ar l yqual i fi ed i ndi vi dual s t o fi l l the pos i t i on ati s s ue under c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u g g e s tiv e o f d is c ri m in a tio n . Sa rul l o v. U. S. P ostal Serv . , 352 F. 3d 789, 7 9 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A s the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded, J ones cannotes t abl i s h the s econd pr ong of the pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. She conce des thats he r ece i ved a l ett eri nform i ng herthats he fa i l ed the exami nat i on forbatt al i on chi ef, and cont ends onl ythatbeca us e s he neve rs aw the ac tual r es ul t s , i ti s notknow n w hethers he ac tual l ypas s ed the exa m i nat i on. She does notdeny thats he w as perm i t t ed t o s i tforthe exa m i nat i on, thatthe s cor e of w hi ch s he w as advi s ed-10-

w as nothi gh enough forthe des i r ed pr om ot i on, orthats he has anyevi dence thatthat s cor e w as i nacc ur at e. Sum m aryj udgm entw as pr oper l ygr ant ed on C ount2. D . C o u n t 3 : N J L A D C la im J ones ar gues , al bei tverybr i efl y , thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n di s m i s s i ng her N J L A D cl ai m . W hen ana l y zi ng N J L A D cl ai m s , “N ew J er s eyhas adopt ed the pr ocedur al bur den- s hi ft i ng m ethodol ogyart i cul at ed i n McD on nell D ou glas . . . . ” Zi ve v . Stanl ey R ober t s , I nc. , 867 A . 2d 1133, 1139 ( N . J . 2005) . J ones agai n compl ai ns of the fa ctthat sh e w a s n o t p ro m o ted to b a ttalio n c h ief a n d o f th e jo b a ss ig n m e n ts w h ich a lleg e d ly pr event ed herfr om gai ni ng the expe r i ence nece s s aryt o be el i gi bl e forthatpr om ot i on, and m a k e s a v a g u e re f

e re n c e to th e “ h is to ry o f g e n d e r b a s e d c o m m e n ts ” th a t s h e e n d u re d . (A pp el l ant’ s B r. at43 ). A s w e hav e exp l ai ned , the fa i l ure t o p rom ote cl ai m fai l s becau se s he qui t e s i m pl ydi d notachi eve a hi gh enough s cor e on the exa m i nat i on forthe pos i t i on sh e w an ted, an ex am ination sh e d o es n o t i tsel f c h all en g e. W ith ref ere n ce to the g en d erb a se d c o m m e n ts, th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyn o ted th a t, ba se d o n th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, ther e i s “no cl ai m forhos t i l e w or k envi r onm entbas ed on gende ri n thi s cas e. ” ( A pp. at 1 9 ). S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ri a te ly g ra n te d o n C o u n t 3 . CO NC L US I ON W e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .