Opinion ID: 166623
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pre-selection of Mr. Sandoval

Text: 33 Ms. Jaramillo alleges that the CJD pre-selected Mr. Sandoval for the PO II position in order to keep him at DJPD. Appellant's Br. at 21. Ms. Jaramillo does not provide evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact on the question of pre-selection. Even assuming the truth of her allegation, it tends to prove only that the CJD promoted Mr. Sandoval for a reason other than his gender. It is therefore insufficient to show pretext. 34 There is evidence that Ms. Donovan discussed the promotion with Mr. Sandoval, but it suggests only that she encouraged Mr. Sandoval to apply for the position when it became available. Mr. Sandoval testified that after he was offered a PO II position in Denver Adult Probation, he called Ms. Donovan to verify a rumor that a similar position would be open in Denver Juvenile Probation. According to Mr. Sandoval, Ms. Donovan told him that a PO II position would be available at some point, though she did not set a date, and she told him that you got to like your chances, as good as anybody else's, that appl[ies] for the position. Sandoval Dep., Appellant's App. at 175. Ms. Donovan also testified that Mr. Sandoval called her to discuss his job offer in Denver Adult Probation and the possibility of an opening at the PO II level in Denver Juvenile Probation. According to Ms. Donovan, she told him that she knew it was a difficult decision to make, that he had to go through the process like everyone else. Donovan Dep., id. at 200. She testified that she offered Mr. Sandoval words of encouragement during the phone conversation, telling him that he would have as good a chance as anyone for a PO II position in Denver Juvenile Probation. Id. Neither Mr. Sandoval or Ms. Donovan suggested that she promised him that he would be promoted when the PO II position became available. 35 Ms. Jaramillo has not produced competent evidence to support her allegation of pre-selection. Ms. Jaramillo testified that several of her co-workers told her that Mr. Sandoval told them that he had been promised a promotion. Appellant's App. at 141. Arturo Villa testified that Mr. Sandoval told him that Susan Donovan told him in a telephone call not to take [a position in adult probation] because the next PO position that became available for Denver Juvenile would be his. Villa Dep., id. at 169-70. Beverly Hobbs Porter, a manager in the department, heard through the rumor mill that Sandoval had been promised the promotion. Appellant's Br. at 9; Porter Dep., Appellant's App. at 185. None of these individuals claimed to have gotten their information from management-level employees. Appellant's App. at 142. Ms. Jaramillo did not discuss the issue with her supervisors or anyone in management, nor did she ask Mr. Sandoval whether he had been promised the promotion. Id. at 141. Hearsay testimony that would not be admissible at trial is not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Thomas v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 485 (10th Cir.1995). 36 Ms. Jaramillo argues that Mr. Sandoval's statements are non-hearsay admissions of a party opponent because they were statement[s] 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. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). In order for a statement to qualify as an admission of a party opponent, the speaker must be involved in the decisionmaking process affecting the employment action involved. Aliotta v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 315 F.3d 756, 762 (7th Cir.2003). Mr. Sandoval was not involved in the hiring or promotion process. His alleged statements were therefore outside the scope of his employment and not admissible as statements of a party opponent. 37 Furthermore, Ms. Jaramillo's pre-selection argument proves too much. If Ms. Donovan did in fact resolve to promote Mr. Sandoval in order to prevent him from leaving the department, this only shows that the application process was a meaningless exercise. This might be inconsiderate or unfair, but it does not support the inference that the CJD's employment decision was motivated by sex-based discrimination. See Mackey v. Shalala, 360 F.3d 463, 468-69 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that the plaintiff's allegation of preselection, even if true, did not entitle a jury to conclude that its proffered explanation — that the candidate was better qualified — was a pretext for unlawful discrimination); Bullington, 186 F.3d at 1318 n. 14 (explaining that the court's role is not to decide whether employment decisions are wise or fair, but whether those decisions were motivated by discriminatory animus). Ms. Jaramillo's pre-selection argument rests on the premise that the CJD promoted Mr. Sandoval for a reason not prohibited by Title VII. Assuming that this premise is true, a reasonable jury could not find that the CJD's decision was based on gender discrimination. See Marx v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 328 (10th Cir.1996) ([I]f a civil rights plaintiff concedes that the real reason for the employer's action was a motive not prohibited under the civil rights laws, such a concession mandates granting of summary judgment to the employer.) (citing Randle, 69 F.3d at 451 n. 14). Her allegation of pre-selection is therefore insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact on pretext. 38