NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JULIA C. LEGGETT,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE 

RIGHTS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2022-1288

______________________ 

Petition for review of a decision of the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights in No. 

20-LC-18 (CV).

______________________ 

Decided: February 2, 2023

______________________ 

JENNIE CATHRYNE BLAINE WATSON, Alan Lescht and 

Associates, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. 

 JOHN D. UELMEN, Office of General Counsel, Office of 

Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, argued 

for respondent. 

 ______________________ 

Before PROST, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-1288 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 02/02/2023
2 LEGGETT v. OCWR

PER CURIAM. 

Ms. Julia Leggett filed a claim with the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights against her employing office, 

the Library of Congress, alleging that it unlawfully discriminated against her on the bases of her race, color, and 

national origin when she was not selected for the position 

of Supervisory Librarian (Acquisitions and Collections). An 

OCWR Merits Hearing Officer granted summary judgment 

for the Library on Ms. Leggett’s claim. The OCWR’s Board 

of Directors affirmed summary judgment, determining 

that Ms. Leggett failed to adduce sufficient evidence for a 

factfinder to conclude that the Library’s asserted non-discriminatory reasons for hiring a white selectee were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Ms. Leggett now appeals 

the Board’s determination. 

We have jurisdiction under 2 U.S.C. § 1407(a)(1) and 

review the Board’s decision de novo.1 

Ms. Leggett’s appeal relies on the theory that she was 

significantly more qualified than the selectee, such that the 

Library’s decision to nevertheless hire the selectee is 

1 OCWR argues that we review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Respondent’s Br. 

at 13–15. Summary judgment, however, has no factual 

findings and is reviewed de novo. See Cienega Gardens v. 

United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Summary judgment, however, is, of course, in all respects reviewed de novo.”); see also M & J Coal Co. v. United States, 

47 F.3d 1148, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[S]ummary judgment 

is a question of law subject to complete and independent 

review by this court.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Case: 22-1288 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 02/02/2023
LEGGETT v. OCWR 3

evidence of discrimination sufficient to survive summary 

judgment. 

Courts have held that, to survive summary judgment, 

a plaintiff must show that she was “significantly better 

qualified for the job.” Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 

1284, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc); see also Martinez v. 

Tex. Workforce Comm’n-C.R. Div., 775 F.3d 685, 687 (5th 

Cir. 2014) (holding that qualifications evidence may establish pretext where plaintiff was “clearly better qualified 

such that the qualifications are so widely disparate that no 

reasonable employer would have made the same decision”

(quotation marks and citation omitted)); Millbrook v. IBP,

Inc., 280 F.3d 1169, 1179–80 (7th Cir. 2002) (adopting the 

Fifth Circuit’s “clearly better qualified” standard and explaining that it is the same standard as the Second, Tenth, 

Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star 

Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(holding that qualifications evidence may establish pretext 

where the plaintiff’s qualifications are “clearly superior” to 

those of the selectee). In close cases, however, a reasonable 

factfinder “would usually assume that the employer is 

more capable of assessing the significance of small differences in the qualifications of the candidates, or that the 

employer simply made a judgment call.” Aka, 156 F.3d at 

1294.

To be sure, Ms. Leggett was qualified for this position. 

Ms. Leggett holds a master’s degree in Library and Information Sciences. At the time of the selection, she had 

worked at the Library for close to 30 years, 15 of which 

were as a Senior Acquisition and Collections Librarian. 

During this period, she performed all aspects of acquisitions work, from creating broader acquisition strategies to 

selecting sources and negotiating agreements with vendors. She thus had extensive experience in acquisitions.

A reasonable factfinder—when considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Leggett—could 

Case: 22-1288 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 02/02/2023
4 LEGGETT v. OCWR

conclude that this was a close case but not that Ms. Leggett 

was “significantly” or “clearly” more qualified than the selectee. Like Ms. Leggett, the selectee also had a master’s in 

Library and Information Sciences. The selectee also had 

substantial experience in acquisitions, even if she might 

have had less than Ms. Leggett. And experience in acquisitions was not the only criterion for the position. The open 

position was for a library section head, a supervisory position. The selectee here had more managerial experience, 

after having already served as an acting supervisor for a 

different library section. 

In short, we agree with OCWR that Ms. Leggett has 

not shown that there is a genuine dispute that the Library’s asserted non-discriminatory reasons for passing on 

Ms. Leggett were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. We 

have considered Ms. Leggett’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, we affirm the 

Board’s decision. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1288 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 02/02/2023