Opinion ID: 216851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Establish Qualification for the Position

Text: Mathews next challenges the district court's alternate grounds for summary judgment on his discriminatory demotion claim. In support of his Title VII claim of discriminatory demotion, Mathews presented only indirect evidence suggesting he received harsher treatment than his similarly situated, non-Indian peers. Because Mathews relies upon such indirect evidence to defend against summary judgment, the court evaluates that claim under the rubric set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. at 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817; Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1226 (10th Cir. 2000). Applying that framework to the present case, Mathews bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory demotion. Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1226. He may satisfy his burden by presenting evidence that (i) he is a member of a protected class, (ii) he was qualified for the job as Unit Supervisor, (iii) he was demoted from that job, and (iv) the position was not eliminated. See Jones v. Denver Post Corp., 203 F.3d 748, 753 (10th Cir.2000). Once the prima facie case has been made, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the demotion. Id. at 752. Finally, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer's stated reason is in fact a mere pretext. Id. at 752-53. The district court concluded Mathews had not satisfied his initial burden because he could not demonstrate he was qualified for the job as Unit Supervisor. Specifically, it determined the significant medical evidence in the record indicates Mathews was medically unable to perform his job (or any job) since June 11, 2005 (i.e. several weeks before the Agency demoted him). The district court also determined that, to the extent Mathews argued he was qualified to perform his job at the time of his demotion on July 1, 2005, he was judicially estopped from taking such position in light of his previous sworn statements to the SSA that he has been completely disabled as of June 11, 2005. Mathews does not dispute that he is currently unqualified to work as a Unit Supervisor, but claims his disability arose only as a result of the Agency's allegedly wrongful decision to demote him, and that it would be inequitable for the Agency to escape liability for its wrongful act because of its dramatic consequences. He emphasizes that, regardless what the medical records in evidence may show, it is undisputed he actually worked as Unit Supervisor until being placed on administrative leave on June 17, 2005. Finally, Mathews contends the doctrine of judicial estoppel should not apply because his sworn statements to the SSA of total disability as of June 11, 2005, are not inconsistent with his current claims that he was qualified for unit supervisor position until suffering debilitating depression as a result of his demotion. Viewing the record before us in the light most favorable to Mathews, we conclude he cannot establish his prima facie case of discriminatory demotion because he is judicially estopped from asserting he was qualified for the job of Unit Supervisor at the time he was demoted. The doctrine of judicial estoppel is based upon protecting the integrity of the judicial system by `prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.' Bradford v. Wiggins, 516 F.3d 1189, 1194 (10th Cir.2008) (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001)). In deciding whether to apply judicial estoppel, courts look to such factors as whether 1) a party's later position is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position; 2) a party has persuaded a court to accept that party's earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or second court was misled; and 3) the party seeking to assert the inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage if not estopped. Id. (quotation omitted). Where a plaintiff's prior inconsistent position is a claim of total disability made in an SSA proceeding, he is not necessarily estopped from asserting qualification for his job in a subsequent lawsuit. See Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 804-06, 119 S.Ct. 1597, 143 L.Ed.2d 966 (1999) (discussing instances in which a plaintiff may be disabled for SSA purposes, yet sufficiently qualified to assert a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act). In such circumstances, however, the plaintiff must provide an explanation of the apparent inconsistency with the necessary elements of plaintiff's claim. Id. at 806-07, 119 S.Ct. 1597. Guided by these principles, we review the district court's decision to apply judicial estoppel for abuse of discretion. Eastman v. Union Pac. R.R., 493 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir.2007). Here, Mathews persuaded an administrative law judge for the SSA that a bulging disc of the cervical spine and an affective disorder rendered him completely disabled from working in any capacity as of June 11, 2005. He now asserts that to the best of [his] recollection, his disabling depression only occurred after the Agency placed him on administrative leave on June 17, 2005. The two positions are clearly inconsistent and satisfy the standard test for judicial estoppel. Mathews makes no effort to explain the apparent inconsistency as required by Cleveland. Instead, Mathews meekly asserts there is no inconsistency. The conflict, however, is self-evident. We are left with a paradigmatic case for judicial estoppel: Mathews's inconsistent statement to the SSA has resulted in his receipt of significant benefits in the form of disability payments, and allowing him to retain these benefits while he now pursues a claim predicated on a complete rejection of his prior position would give him an unfair advantage. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in judicially estopping Mathews from asserting that he was qualified to work as Unit Supervisor until being placed on administrative leave. Because this estoppel prevents Mathews from establishing his prima facie case of discriminatory demotion, summary judgment of that claim is affirmed.