She disregarded Edmonds's earlier suggestion that she go through Respondent's human resources department. It is not unbelievable that Edmonds would interpret Complainant's approach as a problem. Finally, Edmonds testified that, during her interview with him, Complainant appeared to have a problem accepting criticism of her work samples. Edmonds properly took that perceived problem into account. The decision to hire Reymond instead of Complainant was based largely upon subjective factors.
Decisions based upon subjective factors are inherently suspect.
However, even when Respondent's explanations are closely scrutinized, they appear sound. The evidence in the record strongly supports Respondent's articulated reason. On balance, it appears that, from Edmonds's perspective, Reymond was a far better qualified candidate for the position. Complainant offered virtually nothing to establish that Respondent's articulated reason was pretextual. There was evidence that Edmonds had originally wanted the instructional designer to have a Ph.D., but downgraded the position to allow candidates with Master's Degrees to apply.