Opinion ID: 165233
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Senior Managing Director of Sport Resources

Text: 28 Plaintiff also asserts that he should have been promoted to the position of Senior Managing Director of Sport Resources. Scott Blackmun, who is white, was appointed to this position in April 2000. 29 We first hold that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination as to this claim because he has not pointed to any evidence showing that he was qualified for this position. Indeed, Plaintiff has cited to nothing in the record suggesting what the USOC's qualifications for its Senior Managing Director for Sport Resources might have been. See EEOC v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184, 1194 (10th Cir.2000) (to establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show[ ] she is qualified by presenting some credible evidence that she possesses the objective qualifications necessary to perform the job at issue). Plaintiff's bare assertion that [t]here was no objective criteria for the qualifications of this position other than the perceptions of the individuals who had been discriminating against [him] is clearly not sufficient to survive summary judgment absent any record support. 30 Furthermore, the USOC has produced a nondiscriminatory justification for hiring Blackmun rather than Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has not pointed to any record evidence suggesting that this justification was pretextual. Norman Blake, then-CEO of the USOC, declared that he selected Blackmun for this position because Blackmun had, in effect, been acting as the Chief Executive Officer of USOC before my appointment and had won the respect of the USOC management and the NGBs [National Governing Bodies]. Blake further stated that he did not appoint Plaintiff to that position because he, unlike Blackmun, did not have credibility with the NGBs. Blake added that I was aware that the consensus of Dr. Exum's supervisors was that he lacked strong leadership skills and was not an effective manager. My own experience with Dr. Exum confirmed this assessment. 31 To show pretext, the plaintiff must call into question the honesty or good faith of the USOC's assessment of his abilities. See Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc., 186 F.3d 1301, 1318 (10th Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds by Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). It is not enough that a factfinder could disagree with the employer's assessments. The relevant inquiry is not whether [the defendant's] proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether [it] honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs. Id.; see also Giannopoulos v. Brach & Brock Confections, Inc., 109 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir.1997) ([A plaintiff] cannot avoid summary judgment with an unadorned claim that a jury might not believe [defendant's] explanation for his termination; he must point to evidence suggesting that [defendant] itself did not honestly believe that explanation.). 32 Although Plaintiff obviously has his own opinion about his leadership and managerial skills, he has not demonstrated a genuine factual dispute about the genuineness of the USOC's assessment of his abilities. Cf. Bullington, 186 F.3d at 1317 n. 13. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to meet his burden at the summary judgment stage of presenting evidence that the USOC's reasons for not appointing him as Senior Managing Director of Sport Resources were merely pretextual. 33 For these reasons, summary judgment in favor of the USOC was proper with respect to Plaintiff's claim that he was denied the Senior Managing Director of Sport Resources position because of his race. 34