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: 06a0916n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 20, 2006 No. 06-1251 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
SHA RO N B URKE- JOH NSO N , Plaintif f-Appellant , v. DE P AR TM EN T OF VE TER AN S AF F AI RS, ANTHONY J. P RINCIP I, SECRET ARY , Defendant-

Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: KEN NE DY , C OLE, CO OK , C ir c uitJudg e s. R. G UY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Sharon B urke- J ohnson broug ht a Title VI Iaction ag ainst her e mploy er, the Secre tary of the De partment of V eter ans Aff airs (the “Secr etar y ”), a lleg ing that she was de nied a pr omotion at the Depar tment’s Ann Arbor , Michig an Medica l Center (“ Ann Arbor VA”) due to her

rac e. The district court g rante d summary judgme nt for the Sec reta

ry , ruling that Bur

ke-Johnson failed to adduce sufficie nt evidence from which a

rea sonable fa ctfinder

could conc lude that the Secr etar y ’s proff ere d rea sons for deny

ing B urkeJ ohnson a promotion wer e pre text ual. For the re asons that follow, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND Sharon B urke- J ohnso n i s an African- Americ an woman who has worke d at the Ann Ar borNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 2 - VA since 1981. Bur

ke-Johnson started out as a GS-4- level wa rd cle rk but, by

1992, she had c limbed to a GS-6-leve l positi on as a supe rvisory m edical clerk. I

n 1996, Bur

ke-Johnson applied for a

nd

rec eived one of four

positions as an Administrative I nformation Coordinator ( “AI C”), a G S-7-g rade position. The other persons selected to be AI Cs included two Cauc asian wome n, Martha Mor g an and Na ncy Werkema, and one Hispanic woman, L uisa Cardona. When Morga n left the Ann A rbor VA to assume a

position i n a diffe rent de partment of t h e VA , she wa s replac ed by a Cauc asian

woman name d Susan Varc ie, a.k.a . Susan Flee ce. As orig inally

conce ived, the AI Cs worked for the clinical c oordinators (e ssentially head

nurs e s) in t

he ind ivi du a l un its of the Ann Ar bo r VA , and the ir job s we re to s up po rt the un it a nd its clinical coor dinator. Be tween 1996 and 1998, Bur ke-Johnson wor

ked as an A I C in the psy chiatry

c o n t i nuu m an d t h e c ar d i o l o g y c o n t i nuu m . In 1 9 9 9 , s h e w a s r e a s s i g n e d t o w o r k f o r P a m e l a M c C o y, a clinical coordinator r esponsible for ma nag ing va rious clinical spec ialists and the Ann Arbor VA’s qu a l i t y - a s s u r an c e p r o g r a m . B u r k e - J o h n s o n ’ s s e c o n d

- l i n e s u p er v i s o r thro u gh o ut

h er t enu re as anA IC was Jo Tirone, a Cauc asian woma n who was the Ann Arbor fac ility ’s chief

nurse. B ur ke -Johns on

wo rk e d a s an A I C unde r Mc Coy fo r a pp ro xima te ly

thr e e y e ars . D ur ingthi s time, her princ ipal responsibilities included g ather ing patient-ca re a nd other ty

pes of data

and org aniz ing it into repor

ts. McCoy

g ave B urke- J ohnson positive perfor mance evaluations and char acte rized her a s an “e x cellent e mploy ee[].” At her de position, McCoy further testified that Bur ke-Johnson’s streng t hs as an e mploy ee inc luded her ability to effe ctively

repor t the data she gat h er edi na sp re ad s h ee t fo rm at o f h er o wn d es i gn , as we l l as h er p ri o r e x p er i en ce an d

kn o wl ed ge of the VAsy stem.No. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 3 - The VAunderw ent a r eorg anization beg inning in 1998 that re sulted i n the dissolution of

cer tain depar

tments and p o s i t i o ns within the Ann Arbor f acility . As part of

this process, Tirone

s l a t e d t h e A IC p o s i t i o n s f

o r e l i m i n a t i o n . O v e r

t i m e , T i r o n e r e a s s i g n e d B u r k e - J o h n s o n ’ s A IC

c oll e a g ue s to new du ties wi thi n th e Ann A rb or VA . F or ins tanc e , T ir on e re a ssi g ne d We rk e ma to

a po sit ion a s T ir on e ’s ow n s e c re tary , a nd wh e n Wer

ke ma le ft the VA , T ir on e a ssi g ne d Ca rd on a to that post. Varc ie was r eassig ned to a public-af fairs position within the VA. Thus, by 2001, Bur

keJohn so n w a s th e on ly

re ma ini ngAI C. I n F e br ua ry 20 01 , B ur

ke -Johns on

a pp lie d f or a pr omo tio n to the po sit ion of Sta ff As sis tant, a GS-9-g rade appointment

. Cardona a nd one other

person a lso applied. A pane l consisting of Tirone, a woman name d J annette Ventura (the first-line supervisor to the Staff Assistant), and a third unidentified per son, review ed th e ap p l i cations and made the promotion dec ision. The Staff As si s tant’ s d

uti e s p ri mari ly

inv olv e d in

pu tti ngsta ff

ingdata (s uc h a s st a ff

ingne e ds and

e ff e c tiv e ne ss
and inf or matio n r e g a

rd ingpr omo tio ns , a

wa rd s, ov e rt ime , a

nd sic k le a ve ) i nto c omp ute r m od e ls t o g e ne rate re po rt s. Thus , th e po sit ion re qu ir e d pro fi cie nc y

in s of tw are a pp lic a tio ns , s uc h a s E xce l, Outlook, and interna l VA prog rams. T ir o n e te s tified that althoug h computer skills were an important require men t fo r t h e job, s he re g arde d knowledg e of the VA’s ove rall patient-c are service , or g anizatio na l sk ill s, de c isi on -m a kin g sk ill s, and interper so nal ski lls a s b e ing“ hig he r o n th e lis t” of imp or tant q ua lif ic a tio ns . After an informa l reviewproce ss, Tirone and he r collea g ues chose Cardona to fill the Staff Assistant job. At the tim e of he r selec tion, Cardona had been wor king a s Tirone’s se cre tary for more than a y ear . Partly

owing to her obser

vations of Cardona

as her secr etar y , Tirone testified thatNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

Bur ke-Johnson alleg es that she a pplied for, a

nd was de nied, at lea st thirty promotions at 1 the Ann Ar

bor VA. The only

promotion at issue in this appeal, howeve r, is that involving the Staff Assistant position. - 4 - Cardona’ s decision-makingskills, org anizational skills, knowledg e of the VA ’s over all service , and interper sonal skills wer e superior to Bur ke-Johnson’s. I n addition, Tirone conc luded that Cardona possessed all of the nece ssary computer skill s to perf orm the j ob. Tirone testified that she did “[n] ot

rea lly” obser

ve B urke -J o h n s o n ’s p er fo rm an ce as an AIC ( wh en T i ro n e w as Bu rk e- J o h n s on’s sec ondline supervisor) , that she ra rely interac ted with Burk e- J o h n son, and that her knowledg e of B urkeJ ohnson’s job qualifi ca t i ons consisted of a “ baseline unde rstanding .” Howe ver, Tir one viewe d Bur ke-Joh n s o n ’s interper sonal skills as “problematic,” testifying that “Sharon is often de fensive, sh e ’s a loo f a

mon g he r p e e rs , th e se are ob se rv a tio ns that I ’v e ma de a nd my a tte mpt to c omm un ic a te wi th h e r in just sim

ple wa y s, saying he llo , she ’s a

br up t. S he ’s a

br up t, n ot j us t w ithme bu t ot he rs , t h a tw a s t a k e ni n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o nw h e nIs e l e c t e d Lu i s a [C ar d o n a ] o v e r

S h ar o nf o r t h e p o s i t i o n . ” JA 326. I n contra st, Tirone fe lt t h at C ardona’s “inter persona l skill s g o bey ond just a small gr oup of people a nd to the entire service and people outside of patient car e,” that Cardona ha d develope d “a

c a dr e of re latio ns hip s tha t mad e he r kno wl e dg e a ble be y on d cli nic a l issu e s or unit -s pe c if ic patie ntcar e issues,” a

nd that Cardona’ s “re alm of interac tions with ot her pe ople in the medica l center ” wa s broade r than B urke- J ohnson’s. Id. 326-27, 328. McCoy testified that she wa s not surprised by Bur ke-Johnson’s lack of succ ess in obtaining

a promotion be cause as she “look[ed] bac k on that time pe riod [she] did not, to my knowledg e, see Af ri c an- Am e ri c ans be ing pr omo te d. ” As ke d a bo ut whe the r s he fe lt that r a c ia l di sc ri min a tio n c ou ld 1No. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 5 - have pla y ed a r ole in Bur

ke-Johnson’s inabilit y to g et promoted, McCoy responde d, “[y ]es, Idid.” Mc Coy fu rt he r t e sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Q : I n y o u r

o w nw o r d s r ig h t n o w to d ay lo o k in g b a c k , y o ur m em ory , y our honest memory , is J o Tirone someone who eng ag ed in ra cial discrimination? A: At that ti me , y e s. Q : W h e n y o u w o u l d d i s c u s s S h ar o nB u r k e - J o h n s o nw i t h Jo Tirone, did Jo Tirone ever make statements that y ou felt we re demea ning or hostile or depriving Ms. B urke- J ohnson of her dignity outside of her

prese nce? A: Ye s. Q: Could y ou descr ibe them, please ? A: I can’ t reme mber specifics but from what y ou’ve just s tated, that w a s th e g e ne ra l outc ome of so me of the c on ve rs a tio ns . Q: I t was the ten o r, t h e fe el i n g y o u rec eived of her attitude towards Ms. B urke- J ohnson? A: Ye s. J A 505-506. B ur ke -Johns on c on tin

ue d to wo rk a s an AI C un til Ma y 5, 20 02 , wh e n sh e wa s l a te ra lly

re as s i gn edt o a p ro gra m -s u p p o rt -a s s i s t an tp o s i t i o ni nt h e a mb u l at o ry -c ar e u n i t
. Af t er fi l i n g a complaint with the EEOC and obtaining an unfavor able a djudication there , Bur ke-Johnson brought suit in t he Ea stern District of Michig an on Oc tober 19, 2004. She a sserted a Title VI Iclaim for r ace discrimination for t h e fa ilure to promote her to numerous positions, including the Staff A ssistant po sit ion , a

nd fo r r e ta liatio n in

re sp on se to h e r f

ili ng an EE OC c omp la int

. Th e Se c re tary br ou g ht aNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 6 - mot ion fo r sum mary jud g me nt, arguin g , amo ng oth e r thi ng s, that Burk e -Johns on c ou ld n ot e sta bli sh that she wa s denied the Staff Assistant job due to her race

. I n opposing the motion, Burke- J ohnson abandone d her r etaliation claim. Th e d istrict court g rante d summary judgme nt, concluding that Bur ke-Johnson had not presente d either dire ct or c ircumstant i al evidence suff icient to cre ate a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as t o whether the S ecr etar y ’s asserted rationale for selectingCardona,

rathe r tha n B ur ke -Johns on , wa s a pr e te xt f or un lawf ul dis c ri min a tio n. B ur

ke -Johns on timel y appea led. II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Stand ard of Review This Court reviews a

district court’s g rant of summar y ju d gm en t d e novo, employ ing the same standa

rd as the district c ourt. Farhat v. Jopk e , 370 F.3d 580, 587 (6th Cir. 2004)

. Summary judgme nt is appropriate wher e the rec ord shows that “ther e is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the moving party is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P. 56( c). The movant has the burde n of provingthe abse nce of any g enuine issues of material fa ct. Celotex Corp.

v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). I n response , the nonmoving party must pre sent “s i gn ificant probative e vidence ” to show that “the re is [more than] some metaphy sical doubt a s to the material fac ts.” Mo or e v . Phil ip M orris Cos

. , 8 F.3d 335, 340 (6th Cir. 1993). In deter mining whe ther the movant has met his burden, the Court views the evide nce in the l i gh t m o s t favorable to the nonmoving pa

rty
. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). B. Tit le VI I St anda r ds At the summary

judgme nt stag e, a pla intiff must adduce e ither direc t or circumstantialNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

To make out a

prima fa cie c ase of

rac e discrimination base d on a fa ilure to promote, a 2 plaintiff must show: (1) she is a membe r of a protec ted class; (2) she applied f or and w as qualified for

the promotion; (3) she wa s considere d for a nd denied the pr omotion; and (4) another employ ee of

simil ar qua lifications who was not a member of

the protec ted class r ece ived - 7 - evidenc e to preva il on her Title VI Irac e-discr imination claim. DiCarlo v. Potter , 358 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir. 2004). Direc t evidenc e is evidenc e that is fre e of infe renc es and that, if believed, r equire s a finding that “unlawf

ul disc rimination w as at least a motivating fac tor in the employ er’ s actions.” Amini v. Oberlin College , 4 40 F .3 d 3 50 , 3 59 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; compare Ree ves v. Swift Transp. Co., 446 F.3d 637, 640-41 (6th Cir. 2006) (the defe ndant’s lig ht-duty policy was not direc t evidence of pre g nancy discrimination beca

use the e x press ter

ms of the policy

wer e pre g nancy -blind) with T alley v. B ravo Pi tin o R est. , 6 1 F .3 d 1 24 1, 12 49 (6 th C ir . 199 5) (a ff ida vit s by pla int if

f an d w itn e sse s se tti ngfo rt h

rac ist comments made by restaur ant owner s constituted direct e vidence of discrimination). Un de r t he c ir c ums tanti a l- e vid e nc e a pp ro a c h, a pla int if

f mus t “ sh ow [] the e xiste nc e of fa c ts which cr eate an infe renc e of discr imination.” Talley , 6 1 F .3 d at 124 8. Th is m e tho d o f p ro of “ ‘a ro se out of the Supreme Court’ s rec og nition that direct evidenc e of a n employ er’ s motivation will often be unava ilable or diff

icult to acquire .’” Hopson v. Daimle rChrysler Corp. , 3 06 F .3 d 42 7, 43 6 ( 6th Cir. 2002) (quoting S

h er i d a n v. E.I. D uPont de Nemours &Co. , 100 F.3d 1061, 1071 ( 3d Cir. 1996)). The familiar McD onnell Douglas/Burdine burden- shifting f rame work a

pplies. Mc

Do nn e ll Do u g l a s Co r

p. v. Gre en , 4 11 U. S. 7 92 , 8 02 (1 97 3) ; Texas De p’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U. S. 2 48 , 2 52 -5 3 ( 19 81 ); Di Car lo , 3 58 F .3 d a t 41 4. F ir st, the pla int if f m us t make ou t a

pr ima fa c ie

case of ra cial discrimination. Dews v . A.B. Dick Co. , 231 F.3d 1016, 1020- 21 (6th Cir. 2000). 2No. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

the promotion. Grizzell v. City of Col umbus Div. of Police , 461 F.3d 711, 719 ( 6th Cir. 2006). - 8 - “A ft er a p laintiff cre ates a presumption of discrimination by establishing a prima fac ie case , a de fe nd ant m ay

re bu t th e pr e sumpt ion

by pr offeri ng a

le g iti mate , n on dis c ri min a tor y re a so n f or its decision.” Id. a t1 0 2 1

. If t h e e mp l o y e r

c ar r i e s i t s b u r d e n , t h e p l a i n t i f f m u s tt h e np r o v e b y a preponde ranc e o f the evidenc e that the r easons of fer ed by the employ er w ere prete x tual. Id. ; Di Car lo , 358 F.3d at 414-15. Throug h o u t t his burden-shiftingproce ss, “the ultimate burde n of persua ding the trier of

fac t that the defe ndant intentionally discriminated ag ain s t t

h e plaintiff re mains at all times with the plaintiff.” Di Car lo , 358 F.3d at 415 (internal c itation omit ted). A plaintiff may

establish t h at a d ef

en dant’s stated r eason f

or its employ

ment action wa s prete x tual by

showing that the re ason (1) had no basis in fa ct; (2) did not ac tually motivate the challeng ed c o n d u ct ; o r (3) is insufficie nt to ex plain the cha lleng ed conduc t. Manzer v . Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co. , 29 F.3d 1078, 1084 ( 6th Cir. 1994). C. Burke-Johns on’s Evid ence of P ret ext The Sec reta

ry does not dispute that Bur

ke-Johnson has established a pr ima fac ie ca se of r ace discrimination. I nstead, the Sec reta ry argues that i t h as set forth a leg itimate, non-discriminatory

rea son for the se lection of Car dona for the S taff Assistant position, namely , that Cardona was better qualified in that she poss essed decision-making , org anizational, and int erpe rsonal ski lls that were superior to B urke- J ohnson’s, as we ll as a g reater b readth of experienc e within the VA. B urkeJ ohnson challeng es the Sec reta ry ’s rationale as pre text ual on the g rounds that, under Manzer , it did not actually

motivate the Secr etar

y ’s conduc t. Burk e-Johnson relies on McCoy ’s testimony , andNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 9 - further argues that her qualifications exceede d Cardona’ s, and that the sele ction proce ss for the Staff Assistant job was illegitimate. Althoug h she proc eeds unde r both the circ umstantial and direc t methods of proof, B urke- J ohnson cannot withstand summary judgme nt under e ither one. 1. Circumstantial-Evidenc e Appr oach (a) McCoy’

s Testimony Bur ke-Johnson arg ues that McCoy ’s testimony is suf ficient to c reate an infe renc e that Tirone was motivated by rac e discrimination in her selec tion of Cardona ove r B urke- J ohnson. As an initial matter, McCoy

testified that she wa s not involved in t h e h i ri ng proce ss for the Staff Assistant position, t hat she did not know what duties wer e encompassed by that position, and that she had no basis for c omparingBur

ke-Johnson’s job performa nce w ith Cardona’s. By her ow n admission, then, McCoy is not equipped to opine o n whether Cardona w as better

qualified to assume the Staff Assistant positi on. B ur ke -Johns on

re lie s p ri mari ly

on thr e e state me nts that McCo y ma de a t her de po sit ion

that,

acc ording to Burke -Johns on, g ive rise to a question of fa ct about the leg itimacy of the Sec reta

ry ’s proff ere d rea sons for pre fer

ring Cardona. First, B urke -J o h n s o np o i n t s t o M cC o y ’s t es t i m o n y wh er ei nM cC o y

agr eed w ith the statement that “ra ce d i s cr i mination may have pla

y ed a r ole in [Burke- J ohnson’s] failure to ac hieve a pr omo tio n. ” JA 42 6. Al tho ug h it g e ne ra lly su pp or ts B ur ke -Johns on ’s argume nt, thi s te sti mony is ins uf fi c ie nt t o s ub mi t Burk e-J oh nson ’s c la ims to a jur y be c a us e Mc Coy

did no t ti e he r v ie w t o Bur ke-Johnson’s failure to g ain the Staff A ssistant promotion, but only to Burke -Johns on’s g ener al inability to ge t promoted. Where Bur ke-Johnson testified that she has applied a nd been tur

ned downNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 10 - fo r m or e tha

n thir ty pr omo tio ns a t the Ann Ar bo r VA , McC oy ’s te sti mony is not su ff ic ie nt t o r a ise a g enuine que stion of fac t as t o whether rac e dis crimination was a motivating fa ctor in the sele ction pr oc e ss f or the pa rt ic ula r p os iti on on wh ic h B ur

ke -Johns on

pr e dic a te s h e r T itl e VI Ic la im. Second, B urke- J ohnson cites to McCoy ’s af firmative r esponse to a question about whethe r Tirone e ng ag ed in ra cial discrimination:

Q: I n y our own wor ds rig ht now tod ay l ooking ba ck, y our memory , y our honest memory , is J o T irone someone who eng ag ed in ra cial discrimination? A: At that ti me , y e s. J A 505. McCoy ’s “[a]t that ti me” r efe renc e wa s to Febr uary -May 2000 when Mc Coy

alleg ed in her own EEOC complaint that she wa s subjected to ra ci al d i s crimi nation by her supe riors at the A nn Ar bo r V A. B ur

ke -Johns on c on te nd s that Mc Coy ’s te sti mony c arr ie s c on sid e ra ble we ig ht b e c a

us e McCoy direc tly supervised Bur ke-Johnson a

nd repor ted to T irone on Bur

ke-Johns o n ’s work

ac ti v it ie s an d

p e r f o r ma n c e . I na d d it io n , M c Co y a s s e rte d th a t s h e s u f

f e r e d r a c ia ll y d is c r im ina tory treatment at the hands of T irone not long before Tirone a lleg edly discriminated ag ainst BurkeJ ohnson (B urke- J ohnson was denie d the Staff Assistant job in Fe bruar y 2001). Re a d a s an is olate d e xch ang e , M c Coy ’s te sti mony that B ur ke -Johns on

be have d in

a ra c ia lly dis c ri min a tor

y wa y “ [a]t t hat ti me ” mig ht p re c lud e su mma ry jud g me nt f

or the Se c re tary . A ft e r a ll, if the trier of fact believed McCoy ’s t estimony that Tirone discriminated ag ainst Afric an-A merica n
e mpl oy e e s aro un d th e tim e in whic h B ur ke -Johns on

wa s d e nie d th e Sta ff As si stan t pr omo tio n, it would not be a f

ar le ap to c o n cl u d e that Tirone reje cted B urke- J ohnson on the basis of B urke-No. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 11 - J ohnson’s rac e. Despite its probative va lue, McCoy ’s testimony does not enable Bur ke-Johnson to wit hstand summary judgme nt beca

use McCoy limit ed her

opinion that Tirone eng ag ed in ra cial discrimination to her—i.e., Mc Coy ’s—own experienc es at the Ann Arbor VA t hat prompt ed McCoy to file her own EE OC c omp la int . A t le a st f our t ime s d

ur inghe r d e po sit ion , M c Coy te sti fi e d th a t sh e c ou ld o nly speak to he r own e x perie nce. I n fac t, in a deposition question whi ch just prece ded that excer pted above, Mc Coy

was a sked whe ther “Tirone treated blacks and whites diff ere ntly from ea ch other .” McCoy an s w e r e d , “ I c an o n ly s p e a k to my o w n s it u a ti o n at th a t ti me an d th a t is w h a t th e re cord ref lects for that time.” J A 505. Thus, viewe d in context, McCoy ’s t estimony that Tirone e ng ag ed in rac ial discrimination “[ a] t t hat time” is of minimal help to Burke -Johns on beca use McCoy confine d her opinion to her “ own situation” at the Ann A rbor VA . I n other w o rds, McCoy ’s testimony does not g ive rise to an inferenc e that Tirone discriminated ag ainst Bur ke-Johnson, or that Tir o n e d is c r im in a te d

g e n e r a ll y a g a in s t A f

r ic an - A me r ic an s . E v e nif tr u e , M c Co y ’ s te s ti mo n y

tha t Tirone discr iminated ag ainst her c annot stand in as proof of a discr iminatory animus towards B urkeJ ohnson. Third, B urke- J ohnson notes that McCoy ag ree d that Tirone made comments that wer e “deme aning ” or “ hostile” to Bur ke-Johnson, or that tended to “de prive[] Ms. Burke -Johns on of her dig nit y .” JA 50 6. Ho we ve r, Mc Coy wa s n ot a

ble to o ff e r a ny e xamp le s. Al l Mc Coy wa s a ble to

say wa s th a t the se ty

pe s of de ri siv e re mark s we re “ the g e ne ra l outc ome ” of he r c on ve rs a tio ns wi th Tirone. Id. This is insufficient. See W ixson v. Dowagiac Nursing Home , 87 F.3d 164, 171 ( 6th Cir. 1996) (a ffirmingthe district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt where the plaintiffs’ e videnceNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 12 - contained nume rous alleg ations of disparate treatment “that [were] made in g ener al, conc lusory te rm s, bu t na

me s, tim e s and

oc c a sio ns [we re ] miss ing ” and the a ff ida vit s w e re “ fi lle d w ith state me nts of

the su bje c tiv e be lie fs of

the a ff iants ” that th e de fe nd ant d isc ri min a te d a g a ins t it s employ ees from Afric a). Mor e to the point, even a ssuming that Tirone did belittle Burke -Johns on, McCoy did not testify

that these c omments were based on B urke- J ohnson’s rac e. What is l eft of M cC o y ’s t es t i m o n y t h en i s h er

gen er al v i ew t h at Af

ri ca n -A m er i ca n s encounte r stiffer r esistance than whites to advanc ement at the Ann Arbor VA. Even if true, this is t oo slender

a ba sis up on

wh ic h a re a so na ble fa c tf ind e r c ou ld c on c lud e that B ur ke -Johns on wa s no t pr omo te d to the Staff Assistant position due to he r rac e, rathe r than the non-discriminatory rea sons proffe red by the Secr etar

y . Bur ke-Johnson analog izes McCoy ’s testimony to that of witnesses in Carter v. Univ. of Toledo , 349 F.3d 269 ( 6th Cir. 2003) and Hopson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 306 F.3d 427 ( 6th Cir. 2002) and a

rg ues that just as the Carter and Hopson witnesses’ state ments were sufficie nt to defeat the def endants’ motions for summ ary judgme nt there, so is McCoy ’s testimony sufficie nt to defeat the Secr etar

y ’s motion he re. Contra

ry to Burke -Johns on’s asser tion, both cases ar e distinguishable

. I n Carter , the plaintiff wa s an Afr ican- Americ an visiting prof essor at the Univer sity

of Toledo’s Colleg e of Educ ation during the 1999-2000 a cade mic y ear . 349 F.3d at 271. When she had not hea

rd whether her contra ct would be r enew ed for the following y ear , the plaintiff conta cted the university ’s Vice P ro v o s t , who coor dinated fa culty hiring

. Id. The plaintiff te stified that the Vi c e Pr ov os t to ld he r that the I nte ri m De an of the Col le g e of Ed uc a tio n w a s “ tr

yingto whit e wa sh the Colleg e of Educ ation and I am not g oing to let her do t his,” that the Interim Dea n “wa s try ingNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 13 - to ge t rid of the blac k profe ssors and that he was in a strug g le with her involving the appointment of an a dditional black professor,” a nd that the per sonnel within the College of Education “wer e a bunch of r acists.” Id. a t 272. Th is Court re ve rs e d the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt, holding that “ if the j ury wer e to believe that [t he Vice Provost] in fac t made the r emar ks attributed t o h i m , t h en they

might find that the U niversity ’s proff ere d rea sons ‘did not actually motivate the defe ndant’s cha lleng ed conduc t.’” Id. at 276. The de scriptive quality

of the Vic e Provost’s comments contra sts sharply wi t h McCoy ’s inability to provide any

examples of Tirone’ s alleg edly disparag ing rema rks about B urke- J ohnson, but that alone does not distinguish Ca r te r fr o m t h i s case. The Vic e Provost in Carter br oa dly

acc used the Interim Dea

n of working

to keep a ll Africa

n-Amer icans out of the Colleg e of Educ ation, thus givingri s e to an inferenc e that the Interim Dea n discriminated ag ainst the Afr ican- Americ an plaintiff. McCoy , on the other ha nd, testified only

about her “own situation” and did not testify that Tirone sy stematically

discriminated ag ainst Afric an-A merica ns at the Ann Ar

bor VA. Hopson is also unavailing . There , the plaintiff was a long- time DaimlerChry sler employ ee who applied for, but was denied, five differe nt promotions for which Da imlerChry sler conc eded he was qua lified. 306 F.3d at 429. The plaintiff’ s supervisor testified that, in his opi nion, the plaintiff’s

rac e wa s a motivating f

actor in the company ’s re fusal to promote him. Id. at 431. This Court treate d the supervisor’ s testimony as circ umstantial evidenc e of discrimination beca use t he supervisor was fam i l i ar wi t h t h e c o mp an y ’s h i ri n g p ra ct i ce s an d t h e p l ai n t i ff

’s j o b s t re n gt h s an d

t h er ef o re , “[ i ] nl i ght of this knowledg e, [ the s upervisor] was no doubt able to form a compete nt opinion reg ardingwhy [t he plaintiff] was passe d over f or ce rtain jobs.” Id. at 433, 437.No. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 14 - I f t h e ev idence adduce d by the plaintiff in Hopson w a s l i m i t e d t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f his

s u p erv i s o r, Bu rk e- J o h n s o n wo u l d b e o n fi rm er gro u n d i nar gu i n g t h at M cC o y ’s t es t i m o n y i s en o u gh to defe at the Secr etar

y ’s summary

judgme nt motion. But the Hopson evidenc e wa s not so lim ited. The Hopson Court also was troubled by the def endant’ s proffe red non- discriminatory rea son—that in eac h of its non-promotio n decisions involving the pla intiff, it had selec ted a be tter-qua lified

c and idate —in so fa

r a s th a t r e a so n “ wa s v a g ue , [an d] fa ile d to sp e c if y the mann e r i n w hic h th e wh ite employ ees w ere better q u al i fi ed, or the deg ree s of diffe renc e in the [candidate s’] annual evaluations.” Id. at 436. The Hopson rec ord also contained statistical evidenc e that Af ricanAmeric ans we re unde r-r epre sented in the positions to which the plaintiff was seekinga promotion. Id. a t 43 7- 38 . T he re c or d c omp ile d b y B ur ke -Johns on

is n ot s o r ob us t. (b) Other Rec ord Evidenc e of Pretex t Be sides McCoy ’s testimony , Bur ke-Johnson contends that there was other evidenc e that supports a finding of pre text . First, B urke- J o h n s o n argue s that the evidenc e does not show that Cardona w a s b e tt e r

qu a li f ie d f o r th e St a f f A s s is ta n t p o s it io nth anh e r . Sh e f u rth e r c la im s th a t t

he proce ss used to choose be tween the candi d at es fo r t he Staff A ssistant job was suspicious in t hat Ti ro ne did

no t a de qu a te ly

inv e sti g a te B ur

ke -Johns on ’s qu a lif

ic a tio ns . The Sec reta

ry argues that B urke- J ohnson has waive d these a rg uments beca

use she did not raise the m in the district court. On re ply , Bur ke-Johnson resp o n d s t h at these issues we re
e nc omp a sse d by the pr oc e e din g s be low and that to the e xten t the y we re no t, thi s Court s ho uld nonetheless c onsider them pursua nt to Pinney D ock and Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp. , 838 F .2 d 1 44 5, 14 61 (6 th C ir . 1 98 8) , w hic h h e ld t hat an a pp e llate c ourt

may e xer c ise its dis c re tio n toNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 15 - consider matters not raised be low “to the exten t t h e i s s u e is prese nted with sufficie nt clarity and completene ss and its resolution will m ater ially advanc e the pr og ress” of the litigation. i) Qualifications Evidence A lt h o u g h B u r

k e - Jo h n s o nd id no t s p e c if ic a ll y d is c u s s qu a li f

ic a ti o n s a s e v id e n c e o f

p r e te xt in her brie f in opposition to t he Secr et ar y ’s motion for summary judgme nt, the question of her qualifications re lative to those of Cardona was sufficie ntly part of the proc eeding s below. B urkeJ ohnson alleg ed her

superior qua lifications in her c omplaint, the Secret ar y s oug ht to rebut that contention in its opening summar y -judg ment brief, a

nd the district c ourt considere d and dismissed it a s e vid e nc e of

pr e te xt in i ts o rd e r. Thus , w e wi ll a dd re ss t his argume nt. I n s ub sta nc e , B ur ke -Johns on

c la ims tha

t Ti ro ne un du ly

e mph a size d “ int e rp e rs on a l sk ill s” in the hiring proce ss when it is not clear that interper sonal skills were a n important qualification for a job that was primarily statistical in nature
. Bur ke-Johnson further argues t hat the evide nce doe s not show that her inter

persona l skills are in fac t lacking , and notes that until this litigation, Tirone sig ned McCoy ’s per formanc e eva luations of Bur ke-John s o n

a n d d id n o t r ecor d that Bur

ke-Johnson suffere d from any interper sonal-skill deficienc ie s . F in a lly , Bur ke-Johnson appear s to argue that the de pth and br e a dth of he r e xpe ri e nc e wi thi n th e Ann A rb or VA wa s at le a st a s e xten siv e a s Ca rd on a ’s

. Bur ke-Johnson has not produced suf ficient e vidence t o s u b stantiate her qualifications

argume nt. Th e Sup re me Court ha s state d that “ qu a lif ic a tio ns e vid e nc e may

su ff ic e , at le a st i n s ome circ umstances, to show pre text .” Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc

. , 126 S. Ct . 1195, 1197 (2006). In Bende r v. Hecht’s Department Stores , 455 F.3d 612, 626 (6th Cir. 2006), this Court held that the probative value of qualifi cations evidence in ter ms of demonstrating prete x t must be balance d ag ainst “theNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 16 - p r in c ip le s th a t e mp lo y e r s ar e g e n e r a l l y ‘ f r e e to c h o o s e a mo n g qu a li f ie d c an d id a te s , ’ [q

u o ti n g ] W renn
v . G ou ld , 808 F.2d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 1987), and that ‘[t] he law does not require employ ers to make p er fe ct d ec i s i o n s , n o r fo rb i d t h em fr o m m ak i n g d ec i s i o n s t h at o t h er s m ay d i s agr ee wi t h , ’ [ qu o t i n g] Hartsel v. Key

s , 87 F.3d 795, 801 ( 6th Cir. 1996).” Thus,“[w]hether qualific ations evidenc e will be sufficie nt to raise a que stion of f act as to prete x t will depend on whethe r a pla intiff prese nts other evidenc e of discr imination.” Bende r , 4 5 5 F

. 3 d a t 6 2 6

. I f th e r e is a d e arth o f o th e r e v id e n c e of discrimination, then t o survive sum mary judgme nt, “the rejec ted applicant’s qualifications must be so signific antly

better tha

n the succ essful applica

nt’s qualifications that no reasona ble employ er would have c hosen the latter applicant ove r the for

mer. Id. at 627. Bur ke-Johnson has not met this standard. Even if it is true that her interper sonal skills were

no t la c kin g and

tha t he r e xpe ri e nc e wi thi n th e VAwa s a s w e ll- ro un de d a s Ca rd on a ’s , th e se we re jus t two of the fa ctors that Tirone considere d in th e s el ec t i o n proce ss. Tirone also pointed to the importance of over all knowledg e of patient-ca re s ervic es, org anizational skill s, decision-making skills, and c o mp u te r

s k il ls

. B u r

k e - Jo h n s o nh a s n o t s h o w nth a t h e r s k il ls in th e s e o th e r

ar e as exceede d Cardona’ s, let alone, in lig ht of the insufficienc y of McCoy ’s testimony , that they so far surpassed Ca

rdona’ s skills that Tirone’ s selection of Car dona wa s unrea sonable. Finally , althoug h we r ecog nize that “subjective re aso n s p ro v ide ‘re ady mecha nisms for dis c ri min a tio n, ’” B ur

ke -Johns on

ha s n ot a dd

uc e d a ny e vid e nc e sh ow ingthat T ir on e did no t a c tua lly reg ard e x cellent inter

persona l skill s as an important qua lification for the Staff Assistant job. He d r i ck

v . W este rn Re se rv e Car e Sy

s. , 355 F.3d 444, 461 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (interna l citation omitt ed). Eve n had B urke- J ohnson shown that interper sonal skills are irrele vant to the Staff Assistant’s duties, sheNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 17 - could not defe at summary judgme nt beca

use in a Titl e VI Icase “we look to the employ er’ s motivation, not t he applica nt’s perc eptions, or eve n an objective assessment, of what qualific ations

are require d for a

particula r position.” W

renn , 808 F.2d at 502. “ [I ]t is the employ er’ s motivation and intent, not its business judgment, that is at issue.” Id.

ii ) Selec tion-Process Ev idence Wit hout citing to any

authority to support her position, Bur k e- J o h n s on argues that the selec tion process used by Tirone is indi ca t i v e of discriminatory intent beca

use Tirone lacke d the

nece ssary knowledg e of Bur

ke-Johnson’s skills and ex perie nce to mea ningf ully consider he r for

the Staff Assistant position. Al t h o u g h this precise issue doe s not appea r to have been r aised in the district court, we will entertain it bec ause the parties’ briefingclea rly frames the issue and no f

urther fa c tua l de ve lop me nt i s r e qu ir e d to dis po se of it. Bur ke-Johnson is correc t that T irone was unable to te stify in-depth about B urke- J ohnson’s

e mpl oy me nt s kil ls o r pe rf

or ma nc e wi thi n the VA , an d th e Se c re tary do e s n ot d isp ute tha

t T ir on e did not interview B urke- J ohnson for the Staff Assistant position. Although it is conc eivable that, in a proper case , a Title VI I plaintiff might adduce evidenc e of prete x t by showing that an em p l o y er’s revie w of he r application was so cursor y as to sug g est that an impermissible consider ation might be at work, this is not such a c ase. See Kline v . Tenn. Valley Auth. , 128 F.3d 337, 340 ( 6th Cir. 1997) (noting that in the plaintiff’s prior a ppeal, the Court rev er s ed t h e g rant of summar y judgme nt and

rema nded to the district cour

t “to deter mine whether TVA in fac t made a g ood faith dete rmination that [t he candidate actua lly hired] w as better qualified for the job”). I t is undisputed that a pa n el consisting of Tirone, Ventura, and a third unidentified pe rson re viewed the applications of the thr eeNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 18 - pe rs on s w ho a

pp lie d f or the Sta ff As sis tant j ob . M or e ov e r, Ti ron e had su ff ic ie nt f a mil iari ty wi th Bur ke-Johnson’s backg round and skills to be able to c ompare her with Ca rdona. Tirone testified that Bur ke-Johnson’s scope of r esponsi b ility was not as br oad as Car dona’s a nd that Cardona ha d develope d knowledg e “be y ond clinical is sues or unit-specific patient-c are issues” t hat m ade he r the more de sirable c andidate. O n this recor d, it cannot be said that the s elec tion proce ss ga ve short-shr ift to B ur ke -Johns on ’s a

pp lic a tio n, or

that e ve n if Ti ro ne and

he r c oll e a g ue s d id f

a il t o g ive a de qu a te consideration to Burke- J ohnson’s skills, t hat that fa ilure wa s based on B urke- J ohnson’s rac e. 2. Direc t-Evidence Approa ch Bur ke-Johnson contends that McCoy ’s t es t i m ony should be treated as dire ct evidenc e of discrimination. The district court pr operly reje cted this argument. I n Hopson and Carter , t h i s C o u rt h el d t h at al l ega t i o n s o f r ac e d i s cr i m i n at i o nm ad e b y persons who wer e not involved in the employ ment decision do not consti t u t e direct evidenc e of discrimination. Hopson , 3 06 F .3 d 4 33 ; Carter , 349 F.3d 273. Her e, B urke- J ohnson conce des that McCoy had no involvement whatsoever in the hir ing pr ocess f or the Staff

Assistant positi on. Second, eve n castingaside the “ decision- m aker ” g loss to the direct-e vidence test, BurkeJ ohnson ignor es the we ll-entrenc hed princ iple that in Title VI Icase s, direc t evidenc e “is e vidence that proves the ex i s t en ce of a f act without re quiring any infere nces.” Gr izz e ll , 461 F.3d at 719. Her e, wher e McCoy did not testify that Tirone e ng ag ed in ra cial discrimination in her non- selec tion of B urke- J ohnson, infere nces would surely have to be drawn from what McCoy did testify to—that Tirone discr iminat ed aga i nst McCoy , that Tirone dispar ag ed B urke- J ohnson, and that Afr icanAmeric ans fa ced obsta cles to adva nceme nt at the VA—t o co n clude that Burke -Johns on had bee nNo. 06-1251

Bu rk e -J oh ns on v . D e

p’ t of Ve te ra ns Af

fai rs

- 19 - denied the Staf

f Assistant job due to her r ace . The ne cessity of dra wing infere nces f

rom McCoy ’s testimony disqualifies it as direc t evidence

. Finally , Bur

ke-Johnson contends that even if McCoy was not a de cision-maker , this Court should ex tend the Hopson / Carter rule so that statements by “super visor[s] in close conta ct with the decisionmake rs,” qualify as direc t e vidence

. This argument is unavailing for the r easons de scribed above: Whether

evidenc e i s “direct” turns on whe ther the f actf inder would have to dra w any infere nces to conclude that a hiring decision was attributable to unlawful discrimination. Thus, there is no need for

this Court t o modify

the Hopson/Carter

rule be cause McCoy ’s testimony fai l s the threshold, i.e., “no inf

ere nces,” deter

mination of what qualifies a s direct e vidence

. III . C ON CL USI ON B e c a us e Burk e -Johns on

ha s n ot c arr ie d h e r e vid e nti ary burd e n s uc h th a t a

jur y c ou ld conclude that the Secr etar y ’s re asons for not pr omoting her to the Staff Assistant position are prete x tual, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district court granting summary judgme nt for the S e c r e t ar y.