Opinion ID: 171807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unauthorized Standards

Text: Pretext may be shown “by such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered -12- legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons.” Id. (quotation omitted). Under MCDB’s primary unit criteria for determining whether a candidate has demonstrated excellence in research, one of the factors to be considered is the candidate’s extramural support. The MCDB policies state extramural support “should be available in sufficient quantity to support an active research program.” Dr. Lee contends Dr. DiStefano added criteria to the extramural funding analysis by counting only grants awarded to her after her arrival at UCB, even though the funding she received before her arrival at UCB supported her UCB research, and discounting funding she obtained in capacities other than as Principal Investigator. In addition, Dr. Lee contends that because the University is firm in its policy that primary unit criteria be used at all levels of review, if the unauthorized criteria existed they would have been applied by Dr. DiStefano during her pre-tenure review. Yet, the pre-tenure review did not mention any issues with extramural funding. Dr. Lee also points out she was not explicitly told of the unauthorized criteria, even though the Laws of the Regents mandate that the department chair advise every candidate of “the primary unit criteria that the primary unit uses in reaching a decision about the candidate’s performance.” Thus, Dr. Lee argues, the evidence in the record supports a reasonable inference -13- that the criteria cited by Dr. DiStefano for his decision did not exist and are therefore pretextual. An employer’s use of non-existent criteria in evaluating an employee may support a showing of pretext. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dept. of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1328 (10th Cir. 1999) (stating procedural irregularities such as falsifying or manipulating hiring criteria may serve as evidence of pretext); Sarsha v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 3 F.3d 1035, 1040 (7th Cir. 1993) (“When the existence of a uniform policy or practice is in doubt, it cannot serve as a reason for [the employment action in question].”). Dr. Lee, however, has failed to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the criteria used to evaluate her were non-existent. Evidence that (1) Dr. Lee was not told of the criteria in question as required by the Laws of the Regents, (2) the MCDB policies did not explicitly mention the criteria, and (3) Dr. Lee’s pre-tenure review did not mention the criteria, does not alone create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether these criteria for evaluating tenure candidates existed. See Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 454 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The mere fact that an employer failed to follow its own internal procedures does not necessarily suggest that the employer was motivated by illegal discriminatory intent or that the substantive reasons given by the employer for its employment decision were pretextual.”); Aquilino v. Univ. of Kan., 83 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1258 (D. Kan. 2000) (“Even if KU did not diligently follow its standard procedures in evaluating -14- plaintiff's tenure application, such evidence does not permit an inference that plaintiff's sex was a motivating factor in defendant's tenure decision.”). If the criteria were applied uniformly to all tenure candidates, with no candidate being explicitly informed of their existence, then there exists no reasonable inference of pretext from the evidence cited by Dr. Lee. See id. at 1257-58 (concluding no reasonable inference of pretext existed where plaintiff failed to show the policy in question was not applied to other tenure candidates). Dr. DiStefano claims he followed his normal practices in evaluating Dr. Lee’s case, and Dr. Lee has offered no evidence to rebut this assertion. On the contrary, she expressly declines to allege the criteria applied only to her and were not applied to previous candidates. Thus, the facts cited by Dr. Lee regarding the use of allegedly nonexistent criteria do not create a reasonable inference of pretext, and there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether these criteria existed prior to Dr. Lee’s tenure review.