Opinion ID: 3045202
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kidd’s Failure to Promote Claim

Text: To make out a prima facie case in a failure to promote case, the plaintiff needs to show, among other things, that she “applied for and was qualified for a promotion.” Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1174 (11th Cir. 2010). The district court found that Kidd met the first part of this requirement, but failed to offer evidence that she was objectively qualified. The district court relied on Mando’s representation that it sought someone with auditing experience — experience Kidd indisputably didn’t have. But in doing so the district court apparently did not consider that Mando had not objectively defined or publicized its required qualifications. Our circuit precedent considers an employee qualified for a promotion if the employee offers evidence that “she satisfied an employer’s objective qualifications.” Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763, 769 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). But where the qualifications for the job are neither “objectively verifiable” nor “easily obtainable or within the plaintiff’s possession,” 11 The same is not true of Kidd’s failure to promote claim. We’ve made clear that while it’s a rare case where a change in employment responsibilities qualifies as an adverse employment action, the same is not true of a Title VII claim grounded on an employer’s failure to promote the Title VII plaintiff. See Webb-Edwards, 525 F.3d at 1031 (“The Supreme Court has defined an adverse employment action as follows: ‘A tangible employment action constitutes significant change in employment status such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.’”) (emphasis added; citation omitted). 13 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 14 of 32 id. (emphasis omitted), the plaintiff need not satisfy this portion of the prima facie case. That was true here. As Kwak’s testimony makes clear, Mando never formally posted or publicized its desire to hire an assistant accounting manager with auditing experience. Only during internal discussions did management express the need to hire an “individual with . . . extensive auditing experience.” See Kwak Dep. 146:15-23-147:1-5 (“I thought since – since we’ve had a lot of . . . financial audit issues, I think that was good that somebody from our auditing firm was recommending [Seo].”). In light of this, Mando’s hiring criteria was neither objectively verifiable nor easily within Kidd’s possession. Thus, to make out a prima facie case Kidd did not need to present evidence that she possessed auditing experience. 12 Once the employee makes out a prima facie case the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. Because the employer’s burden is one of production — not persuasion 12 Mando seems to suggest that Kidd needed to have applied for the assistant accounting manager position in order to make out a prima facie case. Not so on these facts. In Jones v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 977 F.2d 527, 533 (11th Cir. 1992), we reiterated that when an employer does not formally announce that it is seeking to hire for a vacant position within the company, the plaintiff need not advance evidence that she applied for the vacant position to state a prima facie case. Under these circumstances, an employer “has a duty to consider all those who might reasonably be interested, as well as those who have learned of the job opening and expressed an interest.” Id. (quoting Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1133-34 (11th Cir. 1984)). Because Kidd had expressed interest in a promotion, Mando could have reasonably expected that Kidd had an interest in the assistant accounting manager position — the position immediately above the one she occupied. 14 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 15 of 32 — the employer “need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reason[].” Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (emphasis added) (citation & internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the employer’s reason need only be specific enough so that the “plaintiff [is] afforded a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext.” Id. at 1034 (internal quotation marks omitted). If the employer carries its burden, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to introduce evidence “sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the reasons given by the employer were not the real reasons for the adverse employment decision.” Id. at 1024 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mando contends that it hired Seo because he had auditing experience — experience Mando’s accounting department needed and experience the prescreened candidates and Kidd did not have. 13 Because Mando’s reason for hiring Seo is objectively reasonable on its face — and specific enough for Kidd to rebut — the burden shifts back to Kidd “to come forward with sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable factfinder to find” that Mando’s reason for choosing Seo over 13 This case does not perfectly fit the traditional framework of Title VII failure to promote cases because here Kidd neither applied for the assistant accounting manager position nor did any recruiter suggest Kidd for the position. Indeed, as it seems readily apparent that aside from Kidd herself, no one within Mando or the recruiters even considered Kidd as a viable candidate. 15 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 16 of 32 her — i.e., he was more qualified, including having auditing experience — was pretextual. Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1028. 14 To show pretext, the employee must confront the employer’s seemingly legitimate reason for not promoting her “head on and rebut it.” Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030 (citing Alexander v. Fulton County, Ga., 207 F.3d 1303, 1341 (11th Cir. 2000)). The plaintiff “cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason.” Id. Indeed, “a plaintiff cannot prove pretext by simply arguing or even by showing that [s]he was better qualified than the person who received the position [s]he coveted.” Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp., 509 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (internal brackets & quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff “must show that the disparities between the successful 14 Kidd contends that the district court erred in crediting Mando’s proffered reason for hiring Seo over other candidates. Specifically, Kidd contends that the district court violated the teachings of Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., which said that, for purposes of summary judgment, the district court can’t credit evidence favoring the moving party unless that evidence is “uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.” 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is incorrect. Kidd’s argument ignores the fact that the employer’s burden is not one of persuasion but a burden of production, which itself “can involve no credibility assessment,” id. at 142 ( internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, if we were to accept Kidd’s argument that a district court can never credit an employer’s witnesses for purposes of the second stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, then we’d be categorically barred from considering an employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for hiring one individual over another. See, e.g., Everett v. Cook Cnty., 655 F.3d 723, 729 n.2 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Even if testimony comes from interested employees, [w]e do not interpret [Reeves] so broadly as to require a court to ignore the uncontroverted testimony of company employees or to conclude, where a proffered reason is established through such testimony, that it is necessarily pretextual.” (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). This is certainly not what the Court intended by the passage in Reeves that Kidd relies on. 16 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 17 of 32 applicant’s and [her] own qualifications were of such weight and significance that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Kidd’s primary argument is that she was more qualified than Seo she encounters these well-established principles. To support her claim that she was indisputably more qualified than Seo, Kidd offers a number of reasons why this was the case. The reasons Kidd relies on are: (1) Kidd had more managerial experience than Seo; (2) while Seo has auditing experience, he does not have as broad a background in accounting as Kidd, since, in her view, she served as the de facto assistant accounting manager for a year-and-a-half; (3) both had similar job histories; (4) Rolison allegedly believed that Seo wasn’t qualified for the job; (5) Kidd was an internal candidate and known quantity, unlike Seo; (6) Seo allegedly misrepresented some facts on his resume, which, in Kidd’s view, made him ineligible for employment at Mando; (7) Kidd’s educational background was stronger since she had a bachelor’s degree in accounting and management, while Seo merely had a degree in accounting; and (8) Seo started, but did not finish, an MBA degree, while Kidd was working on a Masters in Public Accounting degree in 2009, and completed the program in 2010. Kidd’s argument about her qualifications relative to Seo’s is one we cannot accept. Our well-established circuit precedent prohibits us from deciding whom as 17 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 18 of 32 between two candidates an employer should have hired. Our task is simply to review the qualifications of the selected candidate and plaintiff, and determine whether the difference between the two is of “such weight and significance that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff.” Springer, 509 F.3d at 1349 (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite Kidd’s laundry list of reasons of why, in her mind, she would have been a more qualified assistant accounting manager, we do not find that Kidd’s educational experience, job history, or supervisory experience, made her exceptionally more qualified than Seo, much less his equal. As we’ve repeatedly stressed, in enacting Title VII Congress did not intend to transform federal courts into a “super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions.” Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030 (citation & internal quotation marks omitted). Our job is instead to determine “whether the employer gave an honest explanation” to justify its hiring decisions. Id. If the employer gives one, we’re not in a position to “second-guess [its] business judgment,” id. Because Kidd’s argument regarding why she was more qualified than Seo calls into question Mando’s business judgment — not its honesty — it is one we must reject. Kidd’s secondary argument is that putting aside the disparity between her and Seo’s relative qualifications, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to show 18 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 19 of 32 that the reason Mando gave for choosing Seo over her was pretext for discriminatory animus. Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp. makes clear that “the plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if [s]he presents circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent.” 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2011). The potentially strongest circumstantial evidence for Kidd is her testimony that Rolison informed her that Kwak and Cheong “refused to even consider an American candidate” for the assistant accounting manager job. See Kidd Dep. 346:7-12 (“Jerry Rolison told me himself that he had tried to get four Americans to be considered in the position [sic] and he was denied, they were not even allowed to interview”). Kidd also testified that another member of HR (Deborah Stone) told her that “no matter what . . . there would never be any American management in the company, it would always be Korean management . . . .” Kidd contends that from these statements a jury can reasonably infer that the reason Mando gave for hiring Seo (he was more qualified) was pretextual, and that the relevant decisionmakers harbored a “discriminatory attitude.” The problem with Kidd’s argument, as we view it, lies not in her analysis of the contents of these alleged statements — Rolison’s, in particular — but in her failure to identify an evidentiary basis under which they are admissible in light of the well-established rule that at the summary judgment stage, we “may consider 19 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 20 of 32 only that evidence which can be reduced to an admissible form.” Rowell v. BellSouth Corp., 433 F.3d 794, 800 (11th Cir. 2005). As a starting point, we note that Rolison’s statement regarding Mando’s hiring process — i.e., that the decisionmakers “refused to even consider an American candidate”— is subject to two, distinct interpretations. One interpretation is that Rolison’s statement is one of opinion which concerned a matter within the scope of his employment, as contemplated by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). Rule 801(d)(2)(D) provides that a statement is not hearsay if the “statement is offered against a party and is . . . a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship.” Thus, if Kidd were able to show by “a preponderance of the evidence that [Rolison] was speaking as an agent of [Mando] at the time he made [this] statement[],” it would be admissible. Rowell, 433 F.3d at 800. A second interpretation of Rolison’s alleged remark is that Rolison was simply repeating what the Mando decisionmakers told him or what he heard them say. If that was the case, then Rolison’s remark might be admissible as an admission by a party opponent absent a valid hearsay 20 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 21 of 32 objection. 15 If neither is true, however, Rolison’s alleged remark would be inadmissible hearsay. 16 So far so good, except we face two hurdles that hinder our review of this evidentiary issue. The first is that the issue hasn’t been raised by the parties or the district court. And as we have cautioned: “Issues should not sprout like weeds in appellate opinions no matter how fertile the minds of the judges deciding the appeal.” Norelus v. Denny’s Inc., 628 F.3d 1270, 1297 (11th Cir. 2010); see also, e.g., Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (“If an argument is not fully briefed (let alone not presented at all) to the Circuit Court, evaluating its merits would be improper both because the appellants may control the issues they raise on appeal, and because the appellee would have no opportunity to respond to it.”). This is especially true where, as here, the resolution of the evidentiary question is, in our view, outcome determinative: if Rolison’s statement is admissible, Kidd will have successfully created a dispute of 15 To be sure, we do not suggest that if Kidd were able to prove that this statement was based on an observation Rolison made or something he was told by the Mando decisionmakers that it would automatically be admissible as an admission by a party opponent. Kidd would still have to identify an additional exception to the rule against hearsay because it is Rolison’s — rather than the Mando decisionmakers’ — statement itself that has to be admissible. This may prove difficult in light of Rolison’s testimony that “at no time did [he] tell Leanna Kidd that Mr. Kwak or any other member of management refused to consider the resumes of American candidates.” 16 Without citing to any particular rule of evidence, the district court dismissed Rolison’s statement as “irrelevant” because he was not a decisionmaker and “thus had no hand in the final decision as to whom to hire.” As we will explain, however, a statement made by a nondecisionmaker may be both relevant and attributable to the defendant employer if the nondecisionmaker was sufficiently involved in the decisionmaking process leading up to the adverse employment action. 21 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 22 of 32 material fact regarding the legitimacy of Mando’s explanation for hiring Seo over her; if it is not admissible, by contrast, Kidd will not have created a dispute of material fact. The second hurdle is that because the facts surrounding Rolison’s alleged remark are unclear we cannot determine its admissibility as a matter of law. If Kidd seeks to introduce Rolison’s alleged remark under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), she needs to show that Rolison participated — at least to some extent — in Mando’s decision to hire Seo and not promote Kidd. See Rowell, 433 F.3d at 800 (observing that “courts have admitted statements of managers under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) where there is some evidence that the statements reflected some kind of participation in the employment decision or policy of the employer”); see also Simple v. Walgreen Co., 511 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2007) (Posner, J.) (holding that statement by non-decisionmaker was admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) because “she was involved in the process that led up to [the adverse employment action]”). As we explain, however, Rolison’s level of involvement in the decisionmaking process is far from clear. On the one hand, it appears that Rolison was only tangentially involved in Mando’s decision to hire Seo, and that the Mando decisionmakers didn’t consult with Rolison regarding Seo’s hire over other eligible candidates. Indeed, as Kidd’s counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument, Rolison’s view that the Mando 22 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 23 of 32 decisionmakers refused to consider an American candidate was based on “his perception, his belief,” Oral Arg. 7:10-7:37, rather than “something that [he] had been told by upper management,” Rowell, 433 F.3d at 801 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). But on the other hand, Rolison was the head of Mando’s human resources department, which may suggest “he [was] authorized to speak with subordinates about [] [Mando’s] employment practices . . . .” Marra v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 497 F.3d 286, 298-99 (3d Cir. 2007) (expressing the view that a non-decisionmaker’s lack of participation in an adverse employment decision does not “render his opinion regarding company policy beyond the purview of Rule 801(d)(2)(D)”) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Rowell v. BellSouth, we shed some light on the contours of Rule 801(d)(2)(D), which may be illuminating here. Rowell involved a workforce reduction that the plaintiff claimed discriminated against him on the basis of age. To support his claim, the plaintiff sought to introduce testimony from one of his co-workers who testified that his supervisor — a non-decisionmaker — informed him that performance evaluations used to reduce the workforce favored youth, and that a lot of the termination decisions were based on the company’s desire “to keep the youth.” Id. at 800. We held that this testimony was inadmissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) because the statements the plaintiff sought to introduce were “in reality nothing but the inadmissible opinion of” a non-decisionmaker, Rowell, 433 23 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 24 of 32 F.3d at 800, rather than something the non-decisionmaker “had been told by upper management about the role age was to play” in the workforce reduction, id. at 801. We take this opportunity to make clear that Rowell did not hold, as the district court seemed to suggest, that a non-decisionmaker can never be considered an agent under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). Rowell says only that to be considered an agent for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2)(D), the record needs to reflect “some kind of participation in the employment decision or policy of the employer.” Id. at 800. Yates v. Rexton, Inc., 267 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2001), and Woodman v. Haemonetics Corp., 51 F.3d 1087 (1st Cir. 1995) — two cases we relied on in Rowell — are also instructive. In Yates, the plaintiff alleged that the workforce reduction under which he was terminated discriminated against him on the basis of his age. To support his claim, the plaintiff sought to introduce statements by a managing director and manager of the parent company of his employer, “expressing their . . . view that workers should retire after age 60.” Yates, 267 F.3d at 801. In addressing whether these executives’ statements were admissible the Eighth Circuit maintained that although the individuals who made the seemingly discriminatory remarks did not directly call for the plaintiff’s termination, “they were intimately involved in the process of shaping [the] [ ] workforce,” id. at 802 (emphasis added), and thus, could be considered “agents” under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). See also id. (observing 24 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 25 of 32 that “[s]ignificant involvement, either as advisor or other participant in a process leading to a challenged decision, may be sufficient to establish agency under Rule 801(d)(2)(D)”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff in Woodman similarly alleged that his employer had discriminated against him on the basis of age in terminating him in connection with a workforce reduction. To rebut the employer’s performance-based reason for terminating him, the plaintiff offered evidence that his supervisor had relayed to him conversations she had with management regarding future terminations. Woodman, 51 F.3d at 1090. During one of those conversations the plaintiff testified that his supervisor said of management: “These damn people—they want younger people here. They will be the ones that will be successful here.” Id. The supervisor’s remark came on the heels of a meeting she attended with management and immediately before the workforce reduction plan was put into place by management. Id. at 1094. As in Yates, the First Circuit considered whether the supervisor’s remark was admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). And as in Yates, the panel found that the supervisor’s remark was admissible despite her lack of decisionmaking authority because she was directly involved in “assessing the performance of . . . employees under her supervision (including [the plaintiff])” and even “recommend[ed] that [the plaintiff] be relieved from his duties.” Id. 25 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 26 of 32 In this case, it remains unclear whether Rolison’s role in the decisionmaking process was a narrow one — involving only the gathering of resumes submitted by professional recruiting services for management to review — or whether it amounted to something more. If the former is true — and Rolison’s role was largely ministerial — Rowell suggests that Rolison was not acting as Mando’s agent when he made the remarks Kidd attributes to him regarding his personal opinion of Mando’s selection process. If, however, Rolison was consulted by Mando’s management (or otherwise included in the decisionmaking process) that may be enough to make his statement an admission by Mando. See, e.g., Simple, 511 F.3d at 672 (noting that when a non-decisionmaker is consulted about an employment decision, a later statement by that non-decisionmaker expressing his view of the employment decision is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D)).17 The same record deficiencies exist with respect to the second basis under which Rolison’s alleged statement may be admissible. It is entirely unclear whether Rolison’s alleged statement that the Mando decisionmakers “refused to even consider an American candidate,” was based on something he observed or heard, or whether it was his own personal opinion. As mentioned above, Kidd’s 17 We do not suggest that the statement Kidd attributes to Deborah Stone regarding the possibility of an American occupying a managerial position is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). Because Kidd has not put forth any evidence regarding Stone’s involvement in the hiring process, her testimony appears to be, as in Rowell, based on personal opinion, and is not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). 26 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 27 of 32 counsel indicated it was the latter — that Rolison’s alleged statement was based on “his perception, his belief.” Nevertheless, because the nature of Rolison’s vague statement presents a factual — rather than legal — question, its meaning creates a factual dispute that should have — but was not — fully explored below. In sum, we find that while Kidd has made out a prima facie case of employment discrimination, it remains unclear whether she created a dispute of material fact regarding whether the reason Mando offered for hiring Seo was a pretext for discriminatory animus. The answer to this question hinges on the admissibility of Rolison’s alleged remark regarding the nature of Mando’s hiring process. If the district court determines that Rolison’s statement is admissible, then there is sufficient evidence to raise a factual dispute about the legitimacy of Mando’s proffered reason for hiring Seo. But if, on the other hand, the district court determines that Rolison’s statement is not admissible, then there is no factual dispute and summary judgment is appropriate. Because the meaning of Rolison’s statement is subject to different interpretations and the scope of Rolison’s involvement in the decisionmaking process leading up Seo’s hire is unclear, we think the prudent course is to remand this case to the district court so that it may determine whether Rolison’s alleged statement is admissible.18 18 Kidd brings to our attention other circumstantial evidence from which she contends that a reasonable jury can infer that Mando’s hiring decision was motivated by discriminatory animus. But none of this evidence takes Kidd the distance she needs to travel — when viewed in isolation 27 Case: 12-12090 Date Filed: 09/27/2013 Page: 28 of 32