Opinion ID: 3010509
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Associate satisfies the

Text: minimum objective requirements for the position applied for as noted on the job profile in the Career Planning Profile Guide, and the applied for position is listed as one of the possible next qualified positions in the associate's MCMS profile. App. at 42a. A jury should determine whether there is any significance to the order of the factors in the MCMS, and, if so, whether Nemetz's failure to use that order was racially motivated. According to Joosten, Bray was more experienced than Riehle: You are both equally qualified. You had the experience. She had the rating of a one. App. at 130a. In fact, Joosten suggested that Bray's experience might have hurt her: And since you were -- since you had been there for a while we thought it wouldn't be an incentive for you. App. at 130a-31a. A jury certainly could conclude that improper racial animus caused Marriott to look unfavorably upon Bray's experience. Bray also argues that Marriott violated its own policy in failing to give priority to her prior experience at the Park 25 Ridge in order to justify going outside that hotel to promote Riehle. Marriott counters by stating that Bray incorrectly states that its policy is to give priority in promotion decisions to applicants at the subject hotel. Marriott points to a letter from the Vice President of Human Resources for Marriott dated May 31, 1991. That letter states: Keep in mind that there may be a number of qualified candidates for any one position and that, before searching outside of their region, hiring managers will try to fill open positions first from within their own hotel or region. App. at 296a (emphasis added). Nevertheless, Richard Lesser stated unequivocally in his affidavit that [i]t was common knowledge that one of the policies at Marriott was to promote from within the subject hotel if at all possible. App. at 326a. Marriott's contention is corroborated by Nemetz who testified that no preference was given to an applicant in the same hotel and that this distinction is not even a factor in promotional decisions. Q: Is it a factor in making the decision as to who to promote, the fact that one individual is in the same hotel and one is not? A: No. Q: It's not even a factor? A: No. App. at 222a. If Lesser is telling the truth, applicants from within were given priority in promotions at the Park Ridge despite Marriott's 26 policy to the contrary. Given Nemetz's view of Bray, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that managers at the Park Ridge stopped giving preference to candidates already at that hotel only when she was competing with a candidate from another Marriott in the same region. Of course, a factfinder could certainly conclude that Lesser was simply mistaken about the hiring policy at the Park Ridge Marriott, but that is not for us to decide. If a factfinder were to conclude that the policy prior to Bray's application was consistent with what Lesser thought was common knowledge, Bray's interview takes on increased significance. It would further establish that her experience had been evaluated in a manner that made her the topranked candidate for the promotion. It would also be consistent with Bray’s testimony that she was led to believe during the interview that Marriott considered her the top candidate, and she was advised that her first decision would be to hire a housekeeping manager. App. at 328a.