Opinion ID: 4537691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Gender Bias Issues with Tillery

Text: Stoe was one of two women in OST, which had approximately fourteen employees. Tillery ran OST and was Stoe’s second-level supervisor beginning in 2010. Christine Crossland, who was in the Office of Research and Evaluation, a parallel division within NIJ which works closely with OST, shared office space with Stoe and routinely interacted with her. JA 1173 ¶¶ 2, 4. In her Declaration offered in the proceedings before the District Court, Crossland stated that Tillery “created and promote[d] a male-dominated workplace culture that [was] hostile to women.” JA 1174 ¶ 6; see also JA 1181 ¶ 15. According to Crossland, Tillery treated Stoe in a “markedly worse” way than he treated male subordinates, and “this biased treatment ha[d] existed for many years.” JA 1174 ¶ 7. In her own Declaration regarding her relationship with Tillery, Stoe stated: Over the years, especially at meetings and presentations, Mr. Tillery has interrupted me while speaking, refused to let me finish speaking, challenged my authority and belittled me in front of male colleagues, become angry when I have corrected a mistake or incorrect statement that he made, or sometimes rephrase what I had said a moment prior, as a way of taking credit for my ideas, or suggesting that I had been inarticulate and that he needed to translate. Very often, I was and still am the only woman in the room. Furthermore, Mr. Tillery does not 8 treat my male colleagues in this manner. With them he is respectful, deferential, and complimentary. JA 1181 ¶ 16. Both Stoe and Crossland declared that Tillery’s treatment of them and other women at DOJ convinced them of Tillery’s “bias against women.” JA 1181 ¶ 15, 1174 ¶ 6. Crossland left no doubt that, based on what she had seen, Tillery treated Stoe differently than he treated her male colleagues: Frequently, I have observed Chris talk to Debra in a way that I would describe as patronizing, condescending, belittling and sexist. Even though she is one of the most outstanding performers at NIJ, Chris frequently speaks to Debra as if he thinks she does not know what she is talking about—even though she clearly does. On multiple occasions, I have heard Chris interrupt, undermine, and insult Debra in meetings in a way that I cannot imagine he would ever speak to one of her male peers. In fact, I have never observed Chris speak to a male colleague in the dismissive way he frequently speaks to Debra. JA 1174 ¶ 8. Although Tillery denied any gender bias, he did admit in his deposition that he had never helped promote a woman to a position above the GS-13 level. JA 1162. He claimed that there were not “a lot of women applying for positions in our office” and that “we have been under a hiring freeze anyway; so, we have had very little opportunity to hire anyone.” JA 1161-62. However, the record indicates that, between 2010 and 2014, Tillery made at least six promotion decisions elevating men to GS-14 or GS-15 level positions. JA 1178 ¶ 5. 9 In 2010, Stoe applied to fill the vacancy in the Division Director position. She was one of two finalists. The other finalist was Hart, a male employee who was working in a GS14 position. Tillery recommended Hart to the Acting Director of NIJ, and Hart was chosen. In his 2010 Hiring Memorandum, Tillery acknowledged that “Ms. Stoe [had] an advantage over Mr. Hart in regard to having a more detailed and in-depth understanding of a significant component of OTD’s mission; specifically, with regard to managing NIJ’s standards development and compliance-testing programs.” JA 1422. He also acknowledged that Hart “[did] not have Ms. Stoe’s depth of experience in compliance-testing and standards development,” but pointed out that “Mr. Hart’s experience in those areas [was] not negligible.” JA 1422. Tillery gave Hart the edge because he had more supervisory and operational experience in compliance testing and standards than Stoe. When Stoe was informed of this hiring decision, Tillery told her that the reason she was not selected was because of her lack of formal supervisory experience. JA 1178-79 ¶ 6. Tillery suggested to Stoe that it would be a good idea for her to get formal supervisory training, which she did. JA 1179 ¶ 6. By 2014, Stoe had completed 80 hours of supervisory management training. 3. The Events Surrounding Stoe’s Non-Selection for the Division Director Position It was well understood that, for a number of years, Stoe was successfully performing GS-15 level work even though she was employed in a GS-14 position. Between 2012 and 2014, Hart and Tillery requested “desk audits” to reclassify Stoe’s position. They made these requests because they recognized that Stoe was routinely working above her grade 10 and performing GS-15 level work. When these requests were denied, Tillery then opted to remove GS-15 level work from Stoe’s position and reassign this work to the Division Director position. In March 2014, Hart announced his retirement. This resulted in a vacancy in the Division Director position, which was a GS-15 Supervisory Program Manager position. Tillery posted the position vacancy in April 2014. Tillery effectively controlled the process for the selection of a new Division Director. Tillery selected two other panelists to help him review applications and interview candidates: Gordon Gillerman, an expert in conformity assessment from the National Institute of Science and Technology, and Maria Swineford, a grants management specialist who did not have a science background. There were serious discussions about removing grants management from the Division Director position, but Tillery still chose Swineford to serve on the panel. In her deposition testimony, Swineford conceded that she was “in no position to really make any sort of assessment about [the candidates’] true backgrounds” in standards and testing and conformity assessment. JA 1012-13. In May 2014, Tillery communicated with officials in Human Resources regarding the candidates on the first certificate list that they had sent him. Tillery objected to the list because, in his view, [t]he applicants in the active certifications [were] a mixed bag. Many [had] no experience in conformity assessment (standards and testing). Those that [did] tend[ed] to have it in only in the area of IT. That bode[d] ill for their ability to replace [Stoe] as the Department’s alternate Standard[s] Executive . . . . 11 JA 1458. In June 2014, in response to Tillery, Human Resources sent another certificate list with 77 names. Stoe was ranked in 21st place on this list and Greene was ranked in 72nd place. Tillery forwarded this certificate list to Gillerman and Swineford, along with a note stating that “the individual that is selected will replace the member of our staff currently serving as one of the two alternate Standards Executives for DOJ” on the ICSP, which was Stoe. JA 1416. The panelists then divided up the 77 applications for review to determine whom they would interview. Stoe’s application was assigned to and reviewed by Swineford. After her initial review, Swineford did not recommend Stoe for an interview because she thought that Stoe lacked the requisite supervisory experience. However, Tillery “made the argument to Ms. Swineford that . . . the work that Ms. Stoe had done with coordinating the standards activities, with leading the standards activities within NIJ, and with representation on other standards bodies, in fact, justified or supported her leadership skills.” JA 264. Swineford then changed her initial score for Stoe, and this resulted in Stoe being added to the interview list. Greene was not initially selected for an interview because Gillerman concluded that Greene was unqualified “based on the assumption that the alternate standards exec role and conformity assessment . . . are critical to the job.” JA 1203. Gillerman never changed his view that Greene’s application did not justify an interview. JA 830. And Tillery apparently agreed with Gillerman’s assessment that Greene did not meet the criteria to be interviewed. JA 1084. As it turned out, the only reason Greene was interviewed was because of “a policy 12 that if one Office of Justice Programs employee on a certificate was interviewed (in this case, Stoe), then all employees on that certificate who work in the same component must also be interviewed.” Br. for Appellee at 10. “In 2014, Greene had worked for the Division for only four years, less than two of them as a GS-14. Greene’s first exposure to standards and conformity assessment at DOJ came from assignments Stoe was ‘managing.’ His relatively limited portfolio of standards and grants management work was on projects that had been shifted to him from Stoe. By 2014, Greene had not published a single standard, had never performed GS-15 level work, and he lacked supervisory experience and supervisory training.” Br. for Appellant at 1617 (footnote and citations omitted). Greene had a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering, completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the National Institute of Science and Technology, and had worked in the private sector. However, Greene had never performed GS-15 level work as Stoe had done. Greene was 38 years old and Stoe was 60 years old at the time of the 2014 selection. On or about June 20, 2014, the panelists deliberated and Tillery then decided whom to interview. Seven candidates were interviewed. In preparation for the interviews, Tillery wrote five questions that the panelists should raise with each candidate. As Appellant explains, “[t]he first question related to the ‘ability to analyze organizational and operational problems and develop solutions’ and specifically referenced service on the ICSP and asked the candidates to ‘describe a situation in which you identified a problem related to conformity assessment activities. . . .’ The second question related to ‘knowledge of program management principles,’ referenced technology 13 policy, and asked for a situation in which the candidate ‘provided program management advice or assistance. . . .’ The third related to the ‘ability to provide advice and guidance on business and program management issues’ and asked the candidates to ‘describe a situation in which you provided advice or guidance’ related to ‘grants and/or contract management.’ The last two questions related to supervisory/ leadership abilities and asked the candidates to ‘describe situation[s]’ in which they ‘performed a leadership role’ and ‘dealt with a variety of stakeholders.’” Br. for Appellant at 17 n.13; see also JA 1445-52. (The interview questions appear in