Opinion ID: 772432
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subjective Hiring Criteria

Text: 21 Cromwell only used the applicant's paper credentials to determine who would be selected for interviews. Mancarella was chosen as the most qualified candidate on the strength of her interview performances. The two men who interviewed Byrnie in his last interview both affirmed that [h]is responses did not demonstrate that he was the most qualified candidate for the position. In my judgment, his responses did not demonstrate familiarity with the basic competencies necessary for effective teaching. 22 As the district court properly noted, [t]here is nothing unlawful about an employer's basing its hiring decision on subjective criteria, such as the impression an individual makes during an interview. Byrnie, 73 F. Supp.2d at 213. At the same time, we have also cautioned that an employer may not use wholly subjective and unarticulated standards to judge employee performance for purposes of promotion. Knight v. Nassau County Civil Serv. Comm'n, 649 F.2d 157, 161 (2d Cir. 1981). This is because [a]ny defendant can respond to a [discrimination charge] with a claim of some subjective preference or prerogative and, if such assertions are accepted, prevail in virtually every case. Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., 610 F.2d 1032, 1040 (2d Cir. 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, an employer's explanation of its reasons must be clear and specific in order to afford the employee a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext. Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 996-97 (2d Cir. 1985). Where an employer's explanation, offered in clear and specific terms, is reasonably attributable to an honest even though partially subjective evaluation of... qualifications, no inference of discrimination can be drawn. Lieberman v. Gant, 630 F.2d 60, 67 (2d Cir. 1980). 23 Although Byrnie contends otherwise, Cromwell's explanation of its hiring decision based on the candidates' interview performances is not so vague or conclusory as to disallow Byrnie the possibility of demonstrating pretext. Quite to the contrary: the justification for not hiring Byrnie, on its face, raises credibility problems. A subjective evaluation, besides being clear and specific, must also be honest. See id. That is to say that [w]hile the business judgment rule protects the sincere employer against second-guessing of the reasonableness of its judgments, it does not protect the employer against attacks on its credibility. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1048 (11th Cir. 2000) (Birch, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Stern, 131 F.3d at 313 (While we do not second-guess an employer's hiring standards, the reasons for its employment decision, including its alleged reliance on such standards, are subject to scrutiny under Title VII...). For example, the Eighth Circuit found, in a case similar to this one, that a school's decision to hire one teacher over another based on their interview performances raised a genuine controversy at this summary judgment stage as to whether age was not a factor in the application of such subjective criteria or the formation of such subjective impressions. Widoe v. Dist. #111 Otoe County Sch., 147 F.3d 726, 730 (8th Cir. 1998). In that case, the school's claim that the plaintiff was not hired, in part, because her recommendations were outdated and her references were hard to find, was undermined by the fact that plaintiff had already been teaching at the school, had been observed by a member of the hiring committee and had, in fact, received favorable letters of recommendation from committee members. See id. at 729-30. Within this context-that is, from the perspective of the entire record-the court found there was a genuine issue of fact concerning whether defendant's proffered reasons are pretextual. Id. at 731. 24 In this case, although Cromwell is entitled to use subjective criteria in choosing whom to hire, Byrnie is also entitled to challenge the credibility of the decision's rationale. Based on Byrnie's 21 ½ years teaching experience, it does not seem difficult to take issue with the credibility of Cromwell's assertion that Byrnie lacks familiarity with the basic competencies necessary for effective teaching. This assertion is particularly hard to swallow given that Byrnie had been a substitute teacher at Cromwell for five years and was often asked to take over classes for extended periods when other teachers were on leave. It strains credulity to believe that a teacher unfamiliar with the competencies necessary for effective teaching would be relied upon for so long. This is particularly the case given that one of Cromwell's own teachers wrote a glowing recommendation for Byrnie stating that Byrnie was the English Department's first choice for long-term substitute teaching assignments. 25 The credibility of Cromwell's justification for not hiring Byrnie is further weakened when compared to the justification initially offered by Cromwell to the CCHRO in 1996. Cromwell's CCHRO Answer explains that the successful job candidate needed to demonstrate an educational philosophy and teaching methodology that was consistent with the teaching methods set out in the Connecticut Competency Instrument. Cromwell then noted that Byrnie was unfamiliar with the basic teaching methods as set forth in the CCI, and to emphasize the point, explained that Nappi had to explain the three major cluster areas set forth in the CCI. Byrnie's answers were not in line with the CCI, while Mancarella, by contrast, demonstrated knowledge of the CCI. Later, however, during his deposition, Nappi conceded that most, if not all, candidates were unfamiliar with the terminology of the CCI in and of itself. Mancarella, herself, Nappi testified, was only somewhat familiar with the CCI, and, although the CCHRO Answer failed to mention it, she, like Byrnie, also had the three major cluster areas of the CCI explained to her. Thus, the CCHRO Answer seems misleading in suggesting that Byrnie's unfamiliarity with the CCI resulted in him comparing unfavorably with Mancarella since it is not clear Mancarella-or anyone-possessed significant familiarity with the CCI. At deposition, Nappi reconciled the fact that most of the candidates lacked familiarity with the CCI with the CCHRO Answer's assertion that Mancarella demonstrated knowledge of the CCI by explaining that the CCI was just a compilation of good teaching practices, and Mancarella was familiar with the basic concepts of effective teaching strategies. 26 The two answers are not necessarily inconsistent. By dropping reference to the CCI in the affidavits of Nappi and Casella, Cromwell extricates itself from the misleading nature of the CCHRO Answer, although the fact that the answer attempts to portray as important to the outcome of the hiring process Byrnie's unfamiliarity with a document the successful candidate had, at best, only limited familiarity with herself is pertinent information for the trier of fact. Unfortunately for Cromwell, downplaying the importance of the CCI results in the claim that a person with over twenty years teaching experience lacks familiarity with the basics of teaching in and of themselves. A juror could believe that the latter statement was the result of an attempt to salvage an earlier explanation that was collapsing during civil discovery-and the apparent implausibility of the new explanation was a price preferable to advancing a new, potentially inconsistent explanation of the hiring decision. See EEOC v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that a juror can reasonably view an employer's changing explanations as pretextual, developed over time to counter the evidence suggesting age discrimination). 27 Cromwell relies as well on Byrnie's poor interviewing skills as the reason for choosing Mancarella for the position and calls attention to Byrnie's own testimony about his interview answers as proof. Because we are not a super-personnel department, it does not matter whether we find Byrnie's interview responses appropriate. An employer is entitled to arrive at a subjective evaluation of a candidate's suitability for a position. The issue here is whether such a poor interview performance could make credible Cromwell's asserted justifications for its hiring decision. Byrnie's interview performance speaks to the question whether he or Mancarella was more qualified for the job-one of the justifications Nappi and Cassella advanced for not hiring Byrnie. It is not probative, however, of their basic claim that Byrnie lacked familiarity with the basic competencies necessary for effective teaching. Further, when the latter claim is juxtaposed with the former, one may reasonably question whether age [or gender] was not a factor in the application of... subjective criteria or the formation of... subjective impressionsconcerning Byrnie's interview performance. Widoe, 147 F.3d at 730. 28 Cromwell's dual explanations for the hiring decision, and the lack of evidence (and even countervailing evidence) of one of their justifications might raise a material question about Cromwell's real reason for not hiring Byrnie. We need not decide whether this mixed bag of evidence is by itself sufficient to defeat summary judgment, however, because we conclude that Cromwell's destruction of evidence, in combination with the evidence undermining Cromwell's justification is adequate to defeat summary judgment.