Opinion ID: 441758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Almendral's Title VII Case.

Text: 29 Judge Sprizzo found that Almendral had met the first three prongs of the McDonnell Douglas test for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, but had failed to establish the fourth: that, after [complainant's] rejection ... the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (footnote omitted). The district court stated that Gayla Blackwell was not appointed from the promotional list and therefore did not have the same statutory qualifications as plaintiff. 568 F.Supp. at 575-76. It is difficult to discern the difference in statutory qualifications referred to by the district court, however, because the qualifying examinations for both the promotion eligible and open competitive lists were exactly the same. See id. at 573. 30 This determination, in any case, was not necessary to the district court's decision because it found that the defendants also had met their burden of establishing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's rejection. Id. at 576. This last conclusion was reached, however, without the considering defendants' post-January 1979 conduct. At least six alleged subsequent incidents of defendants' manipulation of the civil service rules and other asserted misconduct are relevant to the issues of defendants' reasons for rejecting plaintiff and whether or not defendants stated reason for [plaintiff's] rejection was in fact pretext. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. at 804, 93 S.Ct. at 1825. Accordingly, on remand the district court should reevaluate defendants' reasons for rejecting plaintiff in light of all the relevant evidence of defendants' misconduct. 31