Opinion ID: 4538314
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cunningham’s Deposition

Text: The first piece of evidence analyzed by the district court was an excerpt from Cunningham’s deposition testimony. There, Cunningham admitted that his views of Holsapple were “influenced” by the prior lawsuit that Holsapple had filed against him. However, in Cunningham’s response to the next question, which asked whether he could put this view behind him and work with Holsapple, he answered affirmatively, stating he would have been able to do so “if [he] thought [Holsapple] was a good candidate,” or if he had “wanted to hire [Holsapple]”: 8 Case No. 19-1455, Holsapple v. Cunningham Deposition Question: Well, you were named in the prior lawsuit, weren’t you? Cunningham’s Answer: Correct. Deposition Question: Did that influence your view of Jason at all? Cunningham’s Answer: Yes. Deposition Question: So you would be able to put that behind you and work with him? Cunningham’s Answer: Yes. If I thought he was a good candidate or wanted to hire him, yes. (10/19/18 Cunningham deposition, RE 21-27, Page ID # 1017). Reading this exchange in view of the district court’s interpretation, Holsapple contends that Cunningham’s response creates an inference that he had a “poisoned” view of Holsapple because of his past actions. Therefore, according to Holsapple, Cunningham’s statement was “direct evidence that [Holsapple’s] protected activity shaped [Cunningham’s] decision-making process” regarding Holsapple’s eligibility for the open position. (Appellant Br., at 19). Holsapple’s assertions reflect a reaching view of Cunningham’s plain statements. The more plausible understanding of Cunningham’s statements is to take them to mean what they say. Cunningham honestly admits that he was “influenced”—as many reasonable individuals would be—in his views of Holsapple because of a prior dismissed lawsuit Holsapple had filed against him. But, he qualifies this admission by stating that he would be willing to put those views behind him, if in fact, Holsapple were a “good candidate”—likely one who could offer the specific set of personal and professional attributes required of a road patrol deputy. And of course, an evaluation of a candidate’s full package of personal and professional skills, particularly for a sensitive law enforcement position, falls well within the discretion of an employer like Cunningham. Therefore, this portion of Cunningham’s deposition testimony does not create a jury issue on the question of causation. 9 Case No. 19-1455, Holsapple v. Cunningham