Opinion ID: 46376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: situation presented in its dicta.

Text: The selection process for this specific posi- tion took place against a background of con- We will overturn a factual finding for clear cern in the Corps about the retention and fu- error only if we are left “with the definite and ture performance of its aging workforce. In firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” documents released in September 2002 and Couch 44 F.3d at 327. We are left with no January 2003, the Corps described a Strategic such conviction here. The factual findings are Management Plan (“SMP”) that noted, inter amply supported in the record. alia, that “[w]e are faced with an aging work- force and a small new generation of workers. IV. In 1989, approximately 54 percent of the A plaintiff may prove an ADEA claim workforce was more than 40 years of age; in through direct or circumstantial evidence or a May 2001, 73 percent were in that category.” combination of the two. Sandstad v. CB RichThe plan noted that “measures, such as educa- ard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 896 (5th Cir. tion level, length of service, age, awards, and 2005). Where a plaintiff produces direct evidiversity will also be used to measure success dence that “discriminatory animus played a at maintaining a high quality workforce” role in the decision at issue,” the defendant (emphasis added). must either refute the evidence or prove that it 3 would have taken the same action in the ab- superior qualities he demonstrated during the sence of discriminatory animus. Id. hiring process. A plaintiff without direct evidence of age Hollawayemphasizes that the initial ranking discrimination must make out a prima facie of job candidates did not correlate exactly with case of such discrimination through indirect the summed scores of the four panel members evidence by showing: (1) that he was a mem- who submitted their scores; according to those ber of the protected class; (2) that he had “ap- scores, she was twenty points ahead of Heinly plied and [been] qualified for a job for which but was ranked in a tie with him for second. the employer was seeking applicants;”(3) that She points out that the panel determined to he was rejected; and (4) that the employer interview candidates only after the initial hired someone younger. See Bodenheimer v. evaluation, where Heinly ranked second, tied PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 957 (5th Cir. with Hollaway and behind the older and more 1993); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, experienced Van Hook. She claims the inter411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Once the plaintiff view was then unduly prominent in the panel’s has made such a case, the employer must re- decision. spond by offering a non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment action. McDonnell Holloway points to Shaw’s testimony that Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. the position had been posted as a “tech” because the Corps estimated that 75% of the If the employer offers such a reason, the skills were technical but only 25% were verbal plaintiff must demonstrate that the explanation and interpersonal. She reasons that the panel is a pretext and that age actually motivated the weighed verbal and interpersonal skills as 60% decision. See Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., of the overall selection processSS20% under 398 F.3d 345, 352 (5th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff factor 5 in the initial evaluation process (which need not produce new evidence of discrimina- accounted for 50% of the eventual total), then tory intent. A finder of fact may, but is not re- the entire 50% weight that was accorded to quired to, infer discrimination from the com- the interview. bination of the plaintiff’s prima facie case and his evidence that the employer’s proffered rea- Hollaway notes with suspicion that the orison was a pretext. See id. at 350; Reeves v. ginal interview scores have been lost and Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. points to the Corps’s hiring guidelines indicat133, 148 (2000). ing that, should a selection panel opt to conduct interviews, a candidate’s failure to be Hollaway argues essentially that she was available for an interview may not be counted objectively such a stronger candidate than was against him. Finally, Hollaway intimates that Heinly that age discrimination must have the promulgation of the ELP and SMP cast all infected the panel’s selection process. She of this behavior in a particularly suspicious contends that the substantial weight given to light; according to her, the Corps developed a the interview was a pretext and that the panel policy of discriminating against older workers, gradually skewed the process in such a way and that policy was followed in the selection that it would inevitably favor the younger process for the position for which she applied. candidate, whom the panel actually desired to hire because of his youth rather than for any 4