## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 30 35

__ __ __ __ __ _
Ann Hil t, *

* App el la nt , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. St . Ju de Med ic al S.C., In c., *

* App el le e *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Aug us t 1 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, BEAM, an d LOKEN, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

In th is di ve rs it y act io n in vo lv in g Mi nn es ot a's W hi st le bl owe r Act, Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 32
, Ann Hil t ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or 1
of he r em

pl oyer, St

. Ju de Med ic al S.C., In c. Bec au se Hil t ha s f a i l e d t o crea te a
ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact , we affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.I. BACKGRO UND

In Apr il 20 03
, Hil t be ga n wor ki ng fo r St

. J ud e as a Co rp or at e Acco un ts Dire ct or (CAD) in a reg io na l of fic e ba se d in Ch ic ag o. A s a C AD, Hil t ov ers aw de ve lo pm en t of sa le s st rat eg ie s, sa le s pr act ic es , an d pr ic in g wit hi n th e reg io n. Dur in g th e si x y ears Hil t he ld th e po si ti on , sh e rep or te d to a va rie ty of su pe rv is or s. In 20 06

an d 20 08
, Hil t was ev al ua te d b y di ffer en t s up erv is or s an d e ach rat ed Hil t as a 3 ou t of 5 ("m eet s ex pe ct at io ns ") on he r an nu al pe rfo rm an ce ap pr ai sa l. Her 20 06 ap pr ai sa l hi gh li gh te d area s fo r im pr ov em en t, na m el y , co m m un ic at io n sk il l s , in whi ch sh e

rece iv ed a rat in g of 2 ou t of 5 ("b el ow ex pe ct at io ns "). Howev er, he r co m m un ic at io n sk il ls rat in g in crea se d in 20 08 to "m eet s ex pe c t at io ns ." The re is no in di cat io n th at Hil t was ev er d is ci pl in ed or f or m al ly repri m an de d d ur in g t hi s p eri od

.

W hi le se rv in g as a CAD, Hil t m ad e m ul ti pl e rep or ts to m an ag em en t, in cl ud in g Vice Pres id en t of Co rp or at e Acco un ts , Dav id Hen dr ic k, reg ard in g St

. Ju de 's co nd uc t
at va rio us ho sp it al s. The se rep or ts cen te red on Hil t's be li ef th at St

. Ju de vi ol at ed an ti

ki ck ba ck la ws by le av in g eq ui pm en t, so ftwa re, or th e li ke
, in ho sp it al s whe n th es e

m at eri al s s ho ul d h av e b een rem ov ed

.

In Ja nu ary 20 09
, Hen dr ic k pr om ot ed H i l t to Dire ct or of Nati on al Acco un ts

. Thi s p o s i t i o n rem ai ne d in th e Co rp or at e Acco un ts Gro up , bu t no w Hil t be cam e

res po ns ib le fo r co nt ract in g an d sa le s st ra t e gi es on St

. Ju de 's na ti on al acco un ts ,
co ns ti tu ti ng ov er $ 1 b il li on in bu si ne ss

.

Afte r he r pr om ot io n, Hil t di sc ov ered th at a pi ece o f eq ui pm en t re m ai ne d a t a h o s p i t al
, an d acco rd in g to Hil t, sh e no ti fie d Hen dr ic k th at th is was il le ga l. I n ad di ti on , whi le a Dire ct or of Nati on al Acco un ts , Hil t co op erat ed wit h a fed eral i n ve st ig at io n in to St

. Ju de

. Eve ry em pl oyee in th e Co rp or at e Acco un ts Gro up

rece iv ed an em ai l fro m an at to rn ey rep res en ti ng St

. Ju de
, in qu iri ng as to whe th er th e

em pl oyees kn ew of ci rcu m st an c e s rel at ed to cert ai n co nt ract in g pr act ic es

. Hil t

-2

-res po nd ed th at sh e ha d kn owl ed ge of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d su bs eq ue nt ly co op erat ed

fu rth er wit h th e in ve st ig at io n. Acco rd in g to Hen dr ic k, he kn ew Hil t ha d rece iv ed th e in it ia l em ai l in qu iry bu t di d no t kn ow of he r on go in g co op erat io n wit h th e in ve st ig at io n. Hil t of

fers a co nt rary acco un t an d al le ge s th at , by m id -J ul y 20 09
, sh e in fo rm ed Hend ric k s he was i nv ol ve d i n t he in ve st ig at io n.

Hil t an d Hen dr ic k li ke wis e ha ve di ffer en t reco ll ect io ns co nc ern in g Hil t's

p e r f o r m an ce as Dire ct or of Nati on al Acco un ts

. As Hil t reca ll s, Hen dr ic k sa id h e r
pe rfo rm an ce was "v ery go od ," an d sh e ne ve r rece iv ed a ny in di cat io n th at he r
pe rfo rm an ce ne ed ed im

pr ov em en t. Hen d r i c k
, h owe ve r, hi gh li gh ts th at Hil t ha d

va rio us pe rfo rm an ce is su es , whi c h Hil t's co -wo rk ers br ou gh t to hi s at te nt io n. Hil t cl ai m s th at if pe rfo rm an ce is su es ex is te d
, no on e co m m un ic at ed th em to he r. Hen dr ic k ne ve r do c u men te d an y of th es e is su es , fin di ng th em rel at iv el y m in or

m at te rs

.

N e v e r t he le ss , He nd ric k reco un ts on e in ci de nt whe re Hil t's in te ract io n wit h a

cu st om er was "t er r i b l y un pr of es si on al ." As a res ul t of th is in ci de nt , Hen dr ic k

te st ifi ed th at he w a r n e d Hil t to av oi d su ch un pr of es si on al co nd uc t in th e fu tu re bu t di d no t pu rs ue an y fo rm al di sc ip li na ry act io n wit h hu m an res ou rces

. A g a i n , Hil t

c h arac te riz es th is in ci de nt di ffer en tl y , n ot in g, "M r. Hen dr ic k si m pl y ad vi se d me o f

a ch an ge he wan te d to se e fo r an swe rin g req ue st s fo r in fo rm at io n. He ne ve r to ld m e th at I was un pr of

es si on al

. . . or in ap pr op ria te ly an swe red th e req ue st ." Acco rd in g
to hi s affi da vi t, al th ou gh Hen dr ic k ha d co nc ern s ab ou t Hil t's pe rfo rm an ce, he

ge ne ral ly vi ewed he r as a co m pe te nt em pl oyee, an d had no in te nt io n of term in at in g he r.

In Ju ly 20 09
, Hen dr ic k's su pe rv is or s ad vi se d hi m th at St

. Ju de was un de rg oi ng

a 10 % red uc ti on in fo rce (RIF ), an d he ha d to id en ti fy th ree in di vi du al s fro m th e 33

- pe rs on Co rp or at e Acco un ts Gro up fo r in cl us io n in th e RIF. Hen dr ic k th en en ga ge d in an ev al ua ti ng an d ran ki ng pr oc es s to de te rm in e whi ch in di vi du al s to in cl ud e in th e

-3

-RIF. As pa rt o f t h e p ro ces s, Hen dr ic k co ns id ered th e em pl oyees' 20 08 ap pr ai sa ls
,
ran ki ng s by two se ni or di rect or s who rep or te d to hi m an d su pe rv is ed so m e Co rp or at e Acco un t em

pl oyees (b ut no t Hil t)
, a n d hi s pe rs on al ob se rv at io ns of th e em pl oyees'

pe rfo rm an ce an d ach ie ve m en t. Hil t an d si x ot he r em pl oyees rece iv ed a "3 " on th ei r 20 08 ap pr ai sa l, th e lo wes t in th e gr ou p. Hen dr ic k te st ifi ed th at , ev en th ou gh th ey di d

no t d i r e ct ly su pe rv is e Hil t, th e two se ni or di rect or s ge ne ral ly ga ve un fav or ab le feed ba ck ab ou t H i lt 's pe rfo rm an ce. Add it io na ll y , Hen dr ic k sp eci fic al ly co m pa red Hil t's pe rfo rm an ce to Ro n Carl uc ci
, a si m il a r l y si tu at ed Dire ct or of Nati on al
Acco un ts , an d de te rm in ed t h a t Carl uc ci 's pe rfo rm an ce was su pe rio r to Hil t's in

se ve ral cat eg or ie s.

Afte r ev al ua ti ng th es e fac to rs , Hend ric k ra nk ed Hil t i n t he bo tt om fiv e of hi s th irt y -th ree e m

pl oyees. Fro m th e fiv e lo wes t ra nk ed em pl oyees, Hen dr ic k s el ect ed th e bo tt om two em

pl oyees, alo ng wit h Hilt
, fo r in cl us io n in th e RIF. Alt ho ug h Hilt

ran ke d a t t h e to p of th e bo tt om fiv e em pl oyees, an d th us two em pl oyees ran ke d d i r e ct ly be lo w he r, Hen dr ic k de ci de d to ke ep th e two lo wer-ra nk ed em pl oyees , be cau se th ey were ne w an d ha d po te nt ia l fo r gr eat er co nt rib ut io ns th an Hil t. St

. Ju de

ev en tu al ly te rm in at ed Hil t in Aug us t 20 09
, ei gh t m on th s aft er sh e be cam e a Dire ct or of Nati on al Acco un ts

.

Hil t co m m en ced th is act io n ag ai ns t St

. J u d e , as se rti ng cl ai m s un de r Mi nn es ot a's W hi st le bl owe r Act . Hilt al le ge d th at St . J ud e de ci de d to ter m in at e h er ba se d, in pa rt, on he r rep or ts co nc ern in g St

. Ju de 's il le ga l co nd uc t , a n d h e r
pa rti ci pa ti on in a go ve rn m en t in ve st ig at io n. St

. Ju de m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. In ev al ua ti ng th e m eri ts of h er cl ai m , th e d is tri ct co ur t fo cu se d on whe th er Hil t h ad

su ffi ci en tl y es ta bl is he d th at St

. Ju de 's pr of fere d reas on fo r te rm in at io n was pr et ex tu al

un de r th e Mc Don ne ll Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk

. Ult im at el y , th e d is tri ct 2

McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or

p. v . Green , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 (19 73 ). 2

-4

-c o u r t c on cl ud ed th at Hil t di d no t ge ne rat e an is su e of fact as to pr et ex t an d th u s

gr an te d S t. J ud e's m ot io n. Hi lt no w app eal s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

Pu rs ua nt to Mi nn es ot a ' s Whi st le bl owe r Act, an em pl oyer sh al l no t ret al ia te
ag ai ns t an em

pl oyee who "i n go od fai th
, rep or ts a vi ol at io n or su sp ect ed vi ol at io n of

an y fed eral or st at e la w.

. . to an em pl oyer or to an y go ve rn m en ta l bo dy." Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 32
, su bd

. 1( 1)

. Si m il arl y , an em pl oyer sh al l no t ret al ia te ag ai ns t an em pl oyee who "i s requ es te d by a pu bl ic bo dy

. . . to pa rti ci pa te in an in ve st ig at io n." Id

. su bd

. 1( 2) . Usin g t he se st at ut or y m an da te s, we m

us t d et erm in e whe th er t he di st ric t co ur t
pr op erl y gra nt ed St. J ud e's m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

W e rev i e w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t an d it s in te rp ret at io n o f s t a t e la w. Bes t Bu y St or es , L.P. v. Ben de rs on -Wain be rg Ass oc s., L.P., 66 8 F.3 d 10 19
, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we vi ew th e reco rd

an d al l fact ua l di sp ut es in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Hil t. Zik e v. Adv an ce Am
., Cas h Adv an ce Ct rs

. of Mo
., 64 6 F.3 d 50 4, 50 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Ult im at el y , su m m ary jud g men t is pr op er if th e reco rd fai ls to rev eal a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact , a nd
St

. Ju de is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Cl ark v. Mat th ews In t'l Co rp ., 63 9
F.3 d 39 1, 39 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Bu t fact ua l di sp ut es al on e wil l no t pr ecl ud e su m m ary jud gm en t; "[i ]nst ead
, t h e di sp ut e m us t be ou tc om e de te rm in at iv e un de r pr ev ai li ng la w." Sta te Aut o. Ins

. Co

. v. Lawrenc e, 35 8 F.3d 98 2, 98 5 (8t h Cir. 20 04 ) (i nt ern al

qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

To res ol ve a co nt ro ve rs y pr em is ed on Mi nn es ot a's W hi st le bl owe r A c t , Mi nn es ot a co ur ts ap pl y th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk

. Co kl ey

v. Ci ty of Ots e g o , 62 3 N.W .2d 62 5, 63 0 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 20 01 ). Und er th is fram ewo rk
, th e pl ai nt iff ha s th e in it ia l bu rd en of pr es en ti ng a pr im a faci e cas e, whi ch

en ta il s "(1 ) co nd uc t by th e em pl oyee th at is pr ot ect ed by th e [Whis tl eb lo wer] Act, (2 )

-5

-an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n di rect ed at th e em pl oyee, an d (3 ) a cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n th e p ro te ct ed co nd uc t an d t he ad ve rs e act io n." Bu y te nd or p v. Ext en di care Heal th Serv s., In c., 49 8 F.3 d 82 6, 83 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). If th e pl ai nt iff es ta bl is he s a
pr im a faci e cas e, th e em

pl oyer th en ha s th e bu rd en to "ar ti cu la te a le gi ti m at e reas on fo r th e ad ve rs e act io n." Id

. Onc e th e e mp l oyer ha s art ic ul at ed a le gi ti m at e reas on , th e pl ai nt iff sh ou ld ers th e ul ti m at e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng a whi st le bl owe r vi ol at io n by de m on st rat in g th at th e em pl oyer's "re as on is m erel y a pr et ex t an d th at ret al ia to ry

an im us m ot iv at ed th e ad ve rs e act io n." Id

. As the di st ric t co ur t re so lv ed th is act io n by an al y zi ng th e fin al st ep of th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as fram ewo rk
, we m ov e di rect ly

to th e di sp os it iv e is su e: w h e th er Hil t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to de m on st rat e th at St

. Ju de 's pr of

fere d reas on s fo r in cl ud in g he r in th e R I F was pr et ex t fo r a
ret al ia to ry m ot iv e. See Alv arez v. Des Mo in es Bo lt Su pp ly, In c., 62 6 F.3 d 41 0, 41 6 3 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ), cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 2 96 2 (2 01 1)

.

H i lt 's fir st arg um en t res ts on th e te m po ral pr ox im it y be twee n he r whis tl eb lo win g act iv it ie s an d he r te rm in at io n. Sp eci fic al ly, Hil t as se rts th at sh e m ad e

m ul ti pl e rep or t s o f i ll eg al it y , an d St

. Ju de te rm in at ed he r on ly on e m on th aft er sh e in fo rm ed Hen dr ic k th at sh e was p a r t ic ip at in g in th e go ve rn m en t's in ve st ig at io n. Thu s, in Hil t's vi ew, th is cl os e te m po ral rel at io ns hi p "s erv es as st ro ng ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce o f ret al ia ti on ."

W e di sa gr ee. Alt ho ug h ou r cas es te nd to pa in t a "co m pl ic at ed pi ct ur e" on th e is su e of t i mi n g wit h res pe ct to a pr im a faci e cas e, Green v. Fran kl in Nat'l Ban k of Mi nn eap o l i s, 45 9 F.3 d 90 3, 91 5, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), "t im in g al on e is us ua ll y in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th at th e em pl oyer's le gi ti m at e no n- di sc riminat or y reas on fo r di sc ha rg e i s p r et ex t." EEOC v . Ko hl er Co ., 3 35 F.3 d 76 6, 77 3 n.7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 );

Bec au se Hil t do es no t ch al le ng e th e RIF pe r se , we on ly co ns id er whe th er an 3 is su e of fact e x i s t s a s to he r in cl us io n in th e RIF. Cf. Reg al v. K-Mar t Co rp ., 19 0 F.3 d 87 6, 87 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) ("Th e ap p e l l a n t s ch al le ng e [th e em pl oyer's] st at ed

reas on for th ei r di sc ha rg es by argu in g t ha t t he re was no ne ed for a RIF." ).

-6

-se e al so Hub ba rd v. Uni te d Pres s In t'l , Inc ., 33 0 N.W.2d 42 8, 44 5- 46 (Mi nn . 1 98 3)

("Al th ou gh th e ti m in g of th e di sc ha rg e in t h i s act io n do es rai se an in fere nc e of

r e t a l ia to ry m ot iv e th at is su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf y th e cau sa ti on el em en t of [p la in ti ff's ]

pr im a faci e cas e,

. . . it do es no t op erat e to sa ti sf y [p la in ti ff's ] ul ti m at e bu rd e n of

pe rs ua si on ."). Here, ev en if Hil t ha d es ta bl is he d th e cau sa ti on el em en t of he r pr im a faci e cas e by sh owi ng sh e m ad e mu l t ip le rep or ts an d Hen dr ic k te rm in at ed he r on e

m on th aft er sh e in fo rm ed hi m of th e in ve st ig at io n, th is al on e is in su ffi ci en t to sh ow
pr et ex t an d a r et al ia to ry m ot iv e un de r th e fin al st ep of th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as fram ewo rk . See Ko hl er Co ., 33 5 F .3d at 7 73 n.7

.

I n ad di ti on to ev id en ce of cl os e te m po ral pr ox im it y , Hil t cl ai m s sh e h a s
pr es en te d ev id en ce sh owi ng St

. Ju de pr of fere d a fal se reas on fo r in cl ud in g he r in th e RIF. See Hoo ve r v. Nor wes t Pri va te Mo rtg

. Ban ki ng , 63 2 N.W .2d 53 4, 54 5 (Mi nn

. 20 01 ) ("'I n ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces , th e tri er of fact can reas on ab ly in fer fro m th e fal si ty of th e ex pl an at io n th at th e emp l o ye r is co ve r[i ng ] up a di sc riminat or y
pu rp os e.'") (al te rat i o n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Ree ve s v. San de rs on Pl um bi ng Pro ds
., In c., 53 0 U.S. 13 3, 14 7 (2 00 0) ). Sp eci fic al ly, Hil t em ph as iz es th at (1 ) Hen dr ic k "h an d- pi ck ed " he r fo r a pr om ot io n to Dire ct or of Nati on al A c c ou nt s on ly ei gh t

m on th s be fo re he r te r mi n a ti on ; (2 ) he r pe rfo rm an ce rev ie ws were "av erag e" whe n ba se d on su bjec ti ve cri te ria bu t "ab ov e av erag e" whe n ba se d on ob jecti ve cri te ria
, an d (3 ) th e reco rd la ck s do cu m en ta ti on co nc ern in g Hil t's pe rfo rm an ce is su es

. Acco rd in g
to Hil t, th is ev id en ce es ta bl is he s th at sh e was no t am on g th e wor st em pl oyees in th e 33 -em pl oyee Co rp or at e Acco un ts Grou p.

In Hut so n v. McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp ., 63 F.3 d 77 1, 77 9, 78 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ),

we en te rta in ed an arg um en t si m il ar to Hil t's an d ob se rv ed th at , in a RIF cas e, po si ti ve
pe rfo rm an ce ev id en ce is no t part ic ul arl y pr ob at iv e un le ss "i t cas ts do ub t on th e lo w

re l a t i v e a s se ss m en t" in th e RIF ran ki ng

. Bu t ev en th en , su ch ev id en ce is on ly

pr ob at iv e whe n pa st ev al ua ti on s c o n fli ct wit h th e lo w RIF as se ss m en t. Id

. at 78 0. Here, we pe rcei ve no in co ns is t e n c y b e twee n Hil t's pa st ev al ua ti on s an d he r RIF

-7

-ran ki ng . To be su re, H il t's 20 06 an d 20 08 ap pr ai sa ls are far from a g lo win g re vi ew

of Hil t's job pe rfo rm an ce. In fact
, th e un di sp ut ed ev id en ce sh ows th a t in he r 20 08

a p pr ai sa l, Hil t was am on g se ve n in di vi du al s who rece iv ed a "3 "– th e lo wes t s c o r e gi ve n t o a ny Corp or at e Acco un ts em pl oyee. 4

And
, whi le Hil t's pr om ot io n is rel ev an t, it m us t be vi ewed in li gh t of th e en ti re

reco rd

. Gui m arae s v. Su pe rVal u, In c., 6 7 4 F

. 3 d 9 6 2
, 97 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). In th is

reg ard
, Hil t fai ls to ack no wled ge ev id en ce co nc ern in g po st -p ro m ot io n act iv it ie s. Afte r he r pr om ot io n, Hen dr ic k reco un te d an in ci de nt in whi ch Hil t ex hi bi te d "t erri bl y

un pr of es si on al " co nd uc t in de al in g wit h a cu st om er. Alt ho ug h we acce pt Hil t's di sp ut ed ve rs io n of th is in ci de nt , ev en sh e ad m it s th at Hen dr ic k ha d to in fo rm he r th at sh e ne ed ed to ch an ge th e way sh e r e s p o nd ed to cl ie nt s' req ue st s. Add it io na ll y , Hen dr ic k c om

pa red Hil t's po st -p ro m ot io n per fo rm an ce to Carl uc ci 's– th e on ly oth er Dire ct or of Nati on al Acco un ts –a nd fo un d Carl uc ci su pe rio r in se ve ral a sp ect s, in cl ud in g co m

mu n ic at in g, st rat eg iz in g an d co ll ab or at in g. Hil t di d no t pr es en t an y

ev id en ce di sp ut in g he r co m pa ris on to Carl uc ci

. The refo re, we fin d th at Hil t's ge ne ral

pe rfo rm an ce ev id en ce fai ls to cas t do ub t on he r l o w R I F ran ki ng

. See Hut so n, 63
F.3 d a t 7 80

.

Bec au se ge ne ral pe rfo rm an ce ev id en ce is no t pa rti cu la rly pr ob at iv e in th is RIF

cas e, id

. at 77 9, th e di st ric t co ur t ex am in ed whe th er th e reco rd co nt ai ne d co m pa rat iv e
pe rfo rm an ce ev id en ce. Hil t cl ai m s th i s c om pa rat iv e pe rfo rm an ce an al y si s was fla wed

. W e di sa gr ee. St

. Ju de ex pl ai ne d th at th e r e a so n fo r te rm in at in g Hil t was be cau se sh e ran ke d in th e bo tt om fiv e of th e Co rp or at e Acco un ts Gro up

. Giv en th is

art ic ul at ed reas on , Hil t's rel at iv e co m pe te nc y be cam e a pi vo ta l is su e. See id

. at 77 9-
80 (o bs erv in g th e di st in ct io n be twee n an em pl oyee te rm in at ed fo r in co m pe te nc e an d

Hil t n ot es in pa ss in g t ha t b ecau se m or e th an on e p ers on co nd uc te d t he 20 08 4
ap pr ai sa ls
, th e sc or es are in co ns is te nt

. Hil t ci te s no au th or it y fo r th is pr op os it io n, an d

we ha ve lo cat ed no cas e la w th at su gg es t s e mp l o yee ev al ua ti on s are in he ren tl y
su sp ect be cau se m or e th an on e rev ie wer co nd uc te d t he ev al ua ti on s.

-8

-a n e mp l o y ee te rm in at ed fo r le ss co m pe te nc e th an ot he r em

pl oyees un de r a RIF)

. I nd eed
, in th is type of RIF cas e, we th in k co m pa rat iv e pe rfo rm an ce ev id en ce i s
pr ob at iv e in ex am in in g t he leg it im acy of Hil t's ran ki ng

.

Nex t, Hil t ch al le ng es t h e s u b je ct iv e na tu re of Hen dr ic k's an al y si s. Cf. 5 Torg ers on v. Ci ty of Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31
, 10 49 (8 th Ci r.) (en ba nc ) ("Wher e th e

em pl oyer do es no t rel y ex cl usive ly on su bjec ti ve cri te ria
, bu t al so on ob jecti ve cri te ria

an d ed uc at io n, th e us e of su bjec ti ve co ns id erat io ns do es no t gi ve ris e to an in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n." ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 2 S. Ct

. 51 3 (2 0 1 1 )

. Eve n as su m in g Hen dr ic k rel ie d so le ly o n a su bjec ti ve an al y si s, t hi s i n n o way str en gt he ns Hil t's cas e. As we ha ve pr ev iou sly ex pla ine d, "[ T ] he pr es en ce of su bjec ti vi ty in em pl oym en t ev al ua tio ns is it se lf no t a gr ou nd s fo r ch al le ng in g th os e ev al ua ti on s as di sc riminat or y ." Eve rs v. All ia nt Tech syste m s, In c., 24 1 F.3d 94 8, 95 9 (8t h Cir. 20 01 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Ofte n, "[a ] su pe rv is or 's a ss es sm en t of a pa rti cu la r em pl oyee's

pe rfo rm an ce i s n eces sa ril y su bjec ti ve ." Gui m arae s, 6 74 F.3d at 9 76

.

Fi na ll y , Hil t arg ue s th at ev en if th e di st ric t co u r t p r o pe rly fo cu se d on a

co m pa rat iv e an al y si s, be cau se Hil t ran ke d hi gh er th an two o t h e r e m pl oyees no t
te rm in at ed un de r th e RIF, an is su e of fact rem ai ns as to th e RIF's cred ib il it y

. Hen dr ic k te st ifi ed th at he di d no t in cl ud e th e two lo wer ran ke d em pl oyees in th e RIF be cau se th ey were rece nt hi res an d he reco gn iz ed m or e po t e n t i a l in th em

. Hil t ha s
pr of fere d no ev id en ce to di sp ut e Hen dr ic k's ex pl an at io n on th is p o i nt

. See W al to n

v

. McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

. 16 7 F.3 d 42 3, 42 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (n ot in g t h a t R I F pl ai nt iff m

us t pr od uc e affi rm at iv e ev id en ce to crea te a tri ab le is su e as to em pl oyer's

Dur in g hi s de po si ti on , at th e in st ru ct io n of co un se l, Hen dr ic k di d no t an swe r 5
qu es ti on s th at co nc ern ed co nv ers at io ns he ha d wit h St

. Ju de 's co un se l ab ou t th e RIF. Hil t co m pl ai ns th at St

. Ju de sh o u l d n o t b e a bl e to hi de th e RIF cri te ria be hi nd th e at to rn ey -cl ie nt pr iv il eg e an d, at th e sa m e ti m e, arg ue th at it us ed ob jecti ve cri te ria in th e RIF as se ss m en t. W e th in k th e reco rd co nt ai ne d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce ex pl ai ni ng th e pr oc es s an d t he cri te ria Hend ric k c on si de red in m ak in g t he RIF as se ss m en t.

-9

-un su bs ta nt ia te d te st im on y ). Acco rd i ng ly, we do no t se co nd gu es s Hen dr ic k's

bu si ne ss de ci si on to ret ai n em pl oyees wit h m or e po te nt ia l. See Bro wn v. McDo nn el l
Dou gl as Co rp ., 11 3 F.3 d 13 9, 14 1- 42 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (rec o g n i z i n g th at ab se nt il le ga li ty, "we do no t weig h th e wis do m of an y pa rti cu la r em pl oym en t de ci si on ." (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ). The refo re, be cau se Hil t ha s fai le d to ge ne rat e a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact on th e pr et ex t i s su e, th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-