# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 30 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
St acy Cox

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Fi rs t Nat io na l Ba nk , do in g b us in es s as Fir st Nati on al Ban k o f Om ah a

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 5 Fil ed : J ul y

6, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

St acy A. Co x su ed Fi rs t Nati on al Ban k of Om ah a fo r ge nd er di sc riminat io n

un de r Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64
, aft er th e B a n k p r o mote d a m al e

em pl oyee ov er Co x to Sen io r Vice Pres id en t of Ope rat io ns

. The di st ri c t co ur t 1

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t to Fi rs t Nati on al

. Co x appe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

I.

In sp rin g 20 11
, Fi rs t Nati on al so ug ht a su cces so r fo r Dav id S. Do w n in g, th e

r e t i r i ng Sen io r Vice Pres id en t of Ope rat io ns

. The po si ti on ha d no writ te n jo b de sc rip ti on , bu t Op erat io ns in cl ud es at l eas t fo ur area s: lo an s, li ab il it ie s, p ay m en ts ,
an d ri sk . Firs t Nat io na l d id no t h av e a fo rm al pro m ot io ns po li cy

.

Fi rs t Nati on al pr im a r i l y c o n si de red two can di da te s: Co x an d Jo n P. Doyle, a

m al e. Co x be ga n at Fi rs t Nati on al in 20 08 as Vice Pres id en t of Loa n Op e r at io ns , rep or ti ng di rect ly to Down in g. W it h he r pr ev io us ex pe rie nc e at an ot he r ba nk
, sh e ha d
21 y e a r s o f l oa ns ex pe rie nc e. Sh e al so ha d ex pe rie nc e in li ab il it ie s, pa y m en ts , a nd ris k. In 20 10
, sh e le d th e Ope rat io ns te am pl an ni ng fo r a se rie s of ba nk m erg ers (co m pl et ed aft er s he lef

t Fi rs t Nat io na l). Co x, an M.B.A., ha d a gra du at e d eg ree i n ba nk in g. Her 20 11 pe rfo rm an ce ap pr ai sa l rat ed he r “ Mee ts Exp ect at io ns ,” no ti ng he r
st ro n g wor ki ng rel at io ns hi ps wit h bu si ne ss pa rtn ers

. Sh e al so rece iv ed “ Mee ts Exp ect at io ns ” in 20 09

.

Doyle be ga n at Fi rs t Nati on al in 20 00
, or ig in al ly in th e weal th m an a g e men t
gr ou p. In 20 06
, he be cam e Vice Pres id en t of Paym en t Ope rat io ns , rep or ti ng di rect ly

to Down in g. Doyle wor ke d in ba nk in g fo r ov er te n y ears b e f o r e jo in in g Fi rs t Nati on al , i nc l u d i ng pa rti ci pa ti ng in tru st m erg ers

. He ha d ex pe rie nc e in pa y m en ts , li ab il it ie s, an d ri s k
, bu t no t lo an s. He rece iv ed “ Mee ts Exp ect at io ns ” in 20 11 an d

“ Exc eed s Ex pe ct at io ns ” in 20 09

.

Afte r de ci di ng to ret ire
, Down in g, on hi s own in it ia ti ve , crea te d a m at rix rat in g
po te nt ia l can di da te s on th e qu al it ie s he de te rm in ed a se ni or le ad er sh ou ld ha ve

. Co x

an d Doyle were am on g th e hi gh es t

- r at ed can di da te s on th e m at rix

. (The be st -rat ed

-2

-can di da te , a f e mal e, op te d ou t of co ns id erat io n.) Co x an d Doyle rat ed eq ua ll y in

cat eg or ie s “ Dom ai n Kn owl ed ge ,” “ Mat ur it y ,” an d “ Ri sk .” Co x rat ed hi gh er in on e
cat eg or y : “ Peo p l e Man ag em en t Sk il ls .” Doyle rat ed hi gh er in th ree cat eg or ie s:

“ Lead ers hi p,” “ Peer

Res pe ct ,” an d “ Man ag eri al Accep ta nc e.”

Fi rs t Nati on al Pres id en t Dan ie l K. O’ Neil l m ad e th e pr om ot io n de ci si on

. O’ Neil l di d no t in te rv ie w Co x or Doyle, bu t h ad on e di sc us si on wit h each be fo re Down in g an no un ced ret ire m en t. O’ Neil l di d no t re vie w the ir res um es or pe rfo rm an ce
ap pr ai sa ls

. He di d st ud y Down in g’s m at rix

. At th e ti me, o n l y o n e of 15 ex ecu ti ve of fic ers at Fi rs t Nati on al was fem al e, as was on e m em be r of th e 12 -m em

be r Bo ard of Dire ct or s an d on e of 18 em pl oyees rep or ti ng di rect ly to O’ Neil l. Rel y in g on th e

m at rix an d te nu re, O’ Neil l pr om ot e d D o yl e

. Alt ho ug h Co x rem ai ne d in th e sa m e
po si ti on , O’ Neil l g av e h er a ra is e an d i nc reas ed res po ns ib il it y

.

Afte r res ig ni ng in fal l 20 11
, Co x su ed Fi rs t Nati on al fo r ge nd er di sc riminat io n. The di st ric t co ur t g ran te d s um m ary jud gm en t t o F irs t Nat io na l.

II.

Thi s cou rt rev ie ws de no vo a gr an t of sum m ary jud gm en t. Tor ge rs on v. Ci ty of Ro ches te r , 64 3 F.3 d 10 31
, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is

pr op er whe n “ th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact a n d th e m ov an t is

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed. R. Civ

. P. 56 (a )

. A co ur t “ m us t vi ew th e ev i d en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e op po si ng pa rty” an d dr aw al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th at pa rty. Tol an v. Co tt on , 13 4 S. Ct

. 18 61
, 18 66
, 18 68 (20 14 ) (p er cu ria m ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Tit le VII m ak es it un la wfu l fo r a n em pl oyer “ to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al wit h res pe ct to [h er] co m pe n s a t i o n , te rm s, co nd it io ns , or pr iv il eg es of

em pl oym en t, be cau se of su ch in di vi du al ’s

. . . s ex .” 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a )(1 )

.

-3

-Dis cri m in at io n oc cu rs whe n se x “ was a m ot iv at in g fac t o r fo r an y em pl oym en t
pr act ic e, ev en th ou gh ot he r fac to rs als o m ot iv at ed th e pr act ic e.” Id

. § 2 00 0e -2 (m )

.

Co x o ffer s n o d ire ct ev id en ce, s o h er cl ai m is an al y zed un de r th e McDo nn el l
D o u g la s th ree- st ep fram ewo rk

. Se e Tor ge rs on , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 44

. The em pl o ye e

m us t fir st es ta bl is h a p rima facie cas e o f di sc riminat io n, d em on st rat in g: “ (1 ) sh e is in a pr ot ect ed cl as s; (2 ) sh e was qu al ifi ed fo r an op en po si ti on ; (3 ) sh e was de ni ed th at po si ti on ; an d (4 ) th e em pl oyer fil le d th e po si ti on wit h a pe rs on no t in th e sa m e
pr ot ect ed cl as s.” Id

. at 10 46 (b rack et s om it te d)

. If th e em pl oyee es ta bl is he s a pr im a faci e cas e, th e bu rd en sh ift s to th e em pl oyer “t o art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e,

no nd is cri m in at or y reas on ” fo r no t pr om ot in g he r. Id

. The em pl oyee t h e n h a s th e bu rd en “ to pr od uc e ev id en ce su ffi ci en t t o c r e a te a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact
reg ard in g whe th er [th e em pl oyer’s] pr of

fere d no nd i s c riminat or y jus ti fic at io ns are

m ere pr et ex t fo r in te n t i on al di sc riminat io n.” Id

. The em pl oyee m ay de m on st rat e
pr et ex t ei th er by sh owi ng “ th at th e em pl oyer’s ex pl an at io n is un wor th y of cred en ce be cau se it ha s no ba si s in fact ” or “ by pers ua di ng th e co ur t t ha t a p ro hi bi te d reas on

m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed th e em pl oyer.” Id

. at 1 04 7 (e ll ip si s an d b rack et s o m it te d)

.

Fi rs t Nati on al do es no t di sp ut e th at Co x ha s a pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n. Co x do es no t di sp ut e th at Fi rs t Nati on al of fers a no nd is cri m in at or y

ex pl an at io n for th e pr om ot io n: Doyle ha d a lo ng er te nu re at Fi rs t Nati on al an d was

rat ed hi gh er on Down in g’s m at rix

. The is su e is whe th er Co x o ffer s su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce o f pr et ex t.

Acco rd in g to Co x, fiv e ca te go rie s of ev id en ce es ta bl is h pr et ex t: (1 ) he r
qu al ifi cat io ns co m

pa red to Doyle’s; (2 ) O’ Neil l’s im pr op er rel ia nc e on te nu re; (3 ) th e

su bjec ti ve na tu re of th e hi rin g pr oc es s; ( 4 ) O’ Neil l’s li m it ed in ve st ig at io n of th e

-4

-can di da te s; an d (5 ) Fi rs t Nati on al ’s m al e-d om in at e d cu lt ur e. The fir st fo ur ai m to 2
sh ow Fi rs t Nati on al ’s s ta te d reas on s h a v e no ba si s in fact , wh il e th e la st su gg es ts a di sc riminat or y

m ot iv e.

Fi rs t, Co x as se rts t h a t he r qu al ifi cat io ns are ob jecti ve ly su pe rio r to Doyle’s.
It is “co mm o n bu si ne ss pr act ic e to pi ck th e be st qu al ifi ed can di da te fo r pr om ot io n. W he n th at is no t do ne , a reas on ab le in fere nc e ari se s th at th e em pl oyme n t de ci si on

w a s ba se d on so m et hi ng ot he r th an th e rel at iv e qu al ifi cat io ns of th e ap pl ic an t s

. ” McC ul lo ug h v. Rea l Fo od

s, In c. , 14 0 F.3 d 11 23
, 11 29 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). “ To su pp or t

a fin di ng of pr et ex t, th e ap pl ic an t m us t sh ow th at [th e em

pl oyer] hi red a le ss qu al ifi ed

ap pl ic an t.” Tor

ge rs on , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 49 (b rack et s om it te d)

. “ If th e co m pa ris on

rev eal s th at th e pl ai nt iff was on ly si m il arl y qu al ifi ed or no t as qu al ifi ed as th e se le ct ed

can di da te , th en no in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n wou l d ari se .” Id

. (el li ps is om it te d)

.

“ Alt ho ug h an em

pl oyer’s se le ct io n of a le ss qu al ifi ed can di da te can su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e em

pl oyer’s n on di sc riminat or y reas on fo r th e h iri ng was p ret ex tu al , it is th e

em pl oyer’s ro le to id en ti fy th os e st ren gt hs th at co ns ti tu t e th e be st qu al ifi ed

ap pl ic an t.” Gil

be rt v. Des Mo in es Ar ea Cm ty

. Co ll

. , 4 9 5 F

. 3 d 90 6, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ).

Co x fai ls to de m on st rat e th at Doyle is “les s qu al ifi ed ” to be Sen io r Vice
Pres id en t of Ope rat io ns

. Co x co m pa res he r m

ul ti pl e gr ad ua te de gr ees an d lo an s

ex pe rie nc e wit h Doyle’s la ck of gr ad ua te de gr ees an d in ex pe rie nc e wit h lo an s. Bu t
at th e ti m e of th e pr om ot io n, Doyle ha d be en o n e of th e vi ce pr es id en ts of
op erat io ns —a po si ti o n wit h si gn ifi can t op erat io ns res po ns ib il it y , th e sa m e le ve l as Co x— fo r lo ng er th an Co x. He ha d wor ke d at Fi rs t Nati on al th ree ti m es lo ng er th an

Co x al so al le ge s se v e r a l co m m en ts qu es ti on in g Doyle’s se le ct io n, m ad e by 2

no nd eci si on m ak ers aft er th e pr o mo t i o n. In he r rep ly br ie f, fo r th e fir st ti m e, sh e arg ue s th es e are rel ev an t t o pr et ex t. Sh e po in ts to no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s

an al y si s. Thi s ar gu m en t is waiv ed

. Se e Je nk in s v. Wi nt er , 5 40 F.3 d 74 2, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Cl ai m s n ot rai se d i n a n o pe ni ng bri ef ar e d eem ed waiv ed .”).

-5

-Co x. W hi le Co x rece iv ed go od pe rfo rm an ce ap pr ai sa ls an d go od rat in gs on

Down in g’s m at rix
, Doyle ha d eq ua l (o r be tt er) pe rfo rm an ce a pp rai sa ls an d be tt er
rat in gs on th e m at rix

. O’ Neil l pe rm is si bl y id en ti fie d te nu re an d m at rix rat in gs , rat he r th an ed uc at io n a nd lo an s ex pe rie nc e, as “ st ren gt hs th at co ns ti tu te th e b es t q ua li fie d

ap pl ic an t.” Se e id

. Se e al so Tor ge rs on , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 49 (n ot in g “ ‘relat iv el y si m il ar
qu al ifi cat io ns ’ do no t cr eat e a m at eri al is su e o f fac t as to pre te xt ”).

Seco nd
, Co x cl ai m s O’ Neil l im pr op erl y us ed te nu re as a pr ox y fo r go od wor k rel at io ns hi ps

. O’ Neil l te st ifi ed he fel t Doyl e ’s te nu re at Fi rs t Nati on al (ab ou t te n
y e a r s , co m

pa red to Co x’s th ree) m ean t Doyle ha d br oa de r ex pe rie nc e an d m or e rel at io ns hi ps wit h pe op le at th e Ban k, in cl ud in g ou ts id e of Om a h a

. C ox tri es to

un de rm in e O’N ei ll ’s exp la na ti on wit h fact ua l i na ccu racy in h is tes ti m on y : O’Neil l

st at ed he th ou gh t Doyle’s ou ts id e-Om ah a rel at io ns hi ps wou ld be us efu l fo r m erg ers th at were st art in g; Co x po in ts ou t th e m erg ers ha d be e n u nd erway fo r a y ear. The

“ in co ns is te nc ie s [Co x] po in ts to

. . . are m in or or irr el ev an t” an d do no t in di cat e O’ Neil l’s ex pl an at io n ha s no ba si s in fact

. Se e Br oo ks v. Am er en UE , 34 5 F.3 d 98 6, 9 8 8

- 8 9 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). O’ Neil l hi gh li gh te d Co x’s an d Doyle’s res pe ct iv e te nu res

an d ex pl ai ne d why he va lu ed Doyle’s, us in g th e m erg er pr ojec t as on e ex am pl e. Co x

em ph as iz es he r own go od rel at io ns hi ps , i nc lu di ng th e no ta ti on on he r pe r f o r m an ce
ap p r a i s al an d he r wor k as a le ad er on th e al read y -b eg un m erg ers

. Bu t Co x’s go od rel at io ns hi ps do no t tru m p Doyle’s, or m ak e O’ Neil l’s rel ia nc e on te nu re “ un wor th y of cred en ce.” Se e Tor

ge rs on , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 47
, 10 49 (“ Alt ho ug h an em pl oyee do es
po ss es s th e ex p e r i e n ce an d so m e of th e ot he r qu al it ie s es se nt ia l fo r su cces s in th e
po si ti on , th is do es no t su ffi ce to rai se an in fere nc e th at th e em pl oyer’s st at ed rat io na le fo r gi vi ng th e po si ti on t o an ot he r is pr et ex tu al .” (b rack et s an d in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d) ).

Thi rd
, Co x st res se s th e su bjec ti ve na tu re of th e hi rin g pr oc es s, no ti ng Down in g

crea te d th e m at rix wit ho ut an y gu id an ce fro m Fi rs t Nati on al

. Sh e hi gh li gh ts th at th e

m at rix cat eg or ie s— es pe ci al ly th e on e s whe re Doyle ran ke d hi gh er, “ Lead ers hi p,”

-6

-“ Peer Res pe ct ,” an d “ Man ag eri al Accep ta nc e”— rat e su b je c t iv e qu al it ie s. An

em pl oyer co ul d in ve nt s ub jecti ve cri te ria fo r pr om ot io ns in or de r to m as k di sc riminat io n. Se e McC

ul lo ug h
, 14 0 F.3 d at 11 29

. Bu t “ su bjec ti vi ty al on e do es no t

ren de r an em

pl oym en t de ci si on i n f

i r m.” Br oo ks
, 34 5 F.3 d at 98 8. Tho ug h Fi rs t Nati on al di d no t pr ov id e writ te n cri te ria fo r th e po si ti on , th e m at rix cat eg or ie s are no t

an at te m pt by O’ Neil l to in ve nt reas on s in or de r to m as k di sc r i mi n at io n. Dow ni ng

crea te d th e m at rix

. Co x do e s n o t a r gu e Down in g was m ot iv at ed by se x di sc riminat io n. Se e Tor

ge rs on , 6 43 F.3 d at 10 50 (“Th e p r es en ce of su bjec ti vi ty i n

em pl oyee e v a l u a ti on s 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

. . . . [The ap pl ic an ts ] m us t pro du ce su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fro m whi ch a

reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d i nf er d is cri m in at io n.” (br ack et s o m it te d) ).

Fo ur th
, Co x a r g u e s th at O’ Neil l’s fai lu re to in ve st ig at e th e can di da te s rai se s th e in fere nc e th at hi s de ci s i o n w a s ba se d on se x. Sh e co nt en ds th at , un li ke a

r e as on ab le em

pl oyer, he di d no t in te rv ie w th em ; di d no t rev ie w th ei r res ume s o r
pe rfo rm an ce ap pr ai sa ls ; an d di d no t se ek in pu t fro m em pl oyees fam il ia r w i t h t h e i r

wor k. Howev er, sh e ci te s no au th or it y th at th es e s t ep s are req ui red to in fo rm a
pr om ot io n de ci si on

. O’ Neil l ha d ot he r kn owl ed ge of th e can di da te s: He kn ew bo th

were co m

pe te nt vi ce pr es id en ts of op erat io ns , whi ch he be li e v e d de m on st rat ed

su ffi ci en t op erat io ns ex pe rie nc e to be Sen io r Vice Pres id en t. He rel ie d on th e m at rix

crea te d by th ei r di rect su pe rv is or , who ch os e th e cat eg or ie s ba se d on hi s ex pe rie nc e

as th e po si ti on in cu m

be nt

. O’ Neil l kn ew th ei r res pe ct iv e te nu res

. H e h a d on e di sc us si on wit h each can di da te

. He was al so ab le to art ic ul at e hi s reas on in g. Se e id

. (n ot in g in te rv ie wers “ were ab le to ex pl ai n, in cl ear an d reas on ab ly sp eci fic te rm s, th ei r rea so ns for sco rin g [t he pl ai nt iff s] lo wer t ha n t he [pr om ot ed ] can di da te s” ).

Fi fth
, Co x dr aws at te nt io n to Fi rs t Nati on al ’s m al e-d om in at ed cu l tu re. In
sp rin g 20 11
, on ly on e of 15 ex ecu ti ve of fic ers , an d on e of 12 m em be rs of th e Bo ard of Dire ct or s, were fem al e

. C o x d o es no t arg ue th at th is
, al on e, es ta bl is he s di sc riminat or y in te nt

. Howev er, as sh e no t e s , “[e ]ven whe re qu an ti ta ti ve ev id en ce

-7

-do es no t al on e de m on st rat e di s c r i mi n a t io n to so m e jud ic ia ll y crea te d st an da rd of

st at is ti cal co nc lu si ve ne ss , it is st il l rel ev an t in co nju nc ti on wit h al l ot he r ev id en ce in de te rm in in g in te nt io na l di sc riminat io n.” Se e Ma cDis si v. V al m on t In du s., In c. , 85 6 F.2 d 1 05 4, 1 05 8 n .3 (8 th Cir . 19 88 ).

Tak en as a who le
, Co x do es no t rai se a g e n u i n e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact th at O’ Neil l’s reas on s fo r pr om o t in g Doyle are “ un wor th y of cred en ce.” Onl y Fi rs t Nati on al ’s la ck of f

e mal e ex ecu ti ve s su pp or ts pr et ex t; ne it he r Co x’s qu al ifi cat io ns

no r O’ Neil l’s rel ia nc e on te nu re or th e m at rix su pp or t a reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e fai lu re to pro m ot e Co x was du e to se x di sc riminat io n. The di st ric t cou rt d id no t err in gra nt in g s um m ary jud gm en t t o F irs t Nat io na l.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-8

-