Opinion ID: 2976539
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adverse Inference to Prove Pretext

Text: Here, Scott argues that she is entitled to the benefit of an adverse inference. Scott alleges that Eastman illegally destroyed the primary documents from which the numeric scores on the spreadsheets produced by Eastman were generated. Scott maintains that, “Eastman destroyed 17 documents for the 1996-1998 selections to Team Manager, including candidates’ Applications, Qualifying Tests, PCAs [Performance and Capability Assessments], and notes and raw score sheets for the Team Exercise and Interviews.” (App. Br. 37.) Eastman admits that some of the underlying documents, from which the spreadsheets were created, are missing. The district court did not discuss Scott’s argument for an adverse inference. Scott argues that when an employer fails to maintain documents that it is required by law to maintain,4 it should not benefit from its misconduct. Eastman argues that Scott is not entitled to an adverse inference as the spreadsheet scores (computed apparently from underlying documents, some of which are missing) can be explained by a managerial employee who can testify about the process and criteria reflecting the candidates’ scores. The rules governing spoliation of evidence are governed by state law. In McDaniel v. Transcender, LLC, 119 F. App’x 774 (6th Cir. 2005), the 4 Scott points to 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (2007), which states, in relevant part: Any personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer (including. . . application forms submitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, . . . and selection for training or apprenticeship) shall be preserved by the employer for a period of one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. . . .Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or an action brought by the Commission or the Attorney General, against an employer under title VII or the ADA, the respondent employer shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action. The term “personnel records relevant to the charge,” for example, would include personnel or employment records relating to the aggrieved person and to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the aggrieved person and application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position as that for which the aggrieved person applied and was rejected. . . . 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14. 18 plaintiff brought a Fair Labor Standards Act and an ADEA claim against his employer. In McDaniel, the court stated, Spoliation is the intentional destruction of evidence that is presumed to be unfavorable to the party responsible for the destruction. [Citation omitted.] The rules that apply to the spoiling of evidence and the range of appropriate sanctions are defined by state law; in this case, the law of Tennessee. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 F.3d 801, 804 (6th Cir. 1999). Id. at 782. Under Tennessee law, which applies in this case as well, no adverse inference may arise absent evidence of bad faith.5 Eastman maintains that Scott is not entitled to any adverse inference as she has not shown that the relevant documents were destroyed intentionally, in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Scott contends that an adverse inference is warranted under these facts because: (1) Eastman had complete control over the documents; (2) the documents were critical to proving Scott’s claims; (3) litigation was reasonably foreseeable at the time the documents were destroyed; and (4) Eastman has not offered any explanation as to how the documents became unavailable. However, apart from these general claims and arguments, Scott has failed to point to any record evidence, such as deposition testimony or an affidavit showing that the relevant documents were destroyed intentionally, in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Thus, we do not find Scott’s argument for the benefit of an adverse inference to be meritorious.