Opinion ID: 172099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subjectivity of Interviews

Text: Turner's next argument is that PSCo's interview process was a sham meant to hide its discriminatory hiring practices. She characterizes the interview questions as purely subjective and lacking any relationship to actual job tasks or skills. Aplt. Br. at 9. She also notes that no female interviewers sat on her interview panel. Turner, however, fails to explain exactly how the interview questions disadvantaged women over men, and, more importantly, ignores the fact that the other female candidate for the Plant Specialist C position in 2004 was rated second-best among all 2004 interviewees and was offered a job. Although the presence of subjective decision-making can create a strong inference of discrimination, the use of subjective considerations by employers is not unlawful per se. Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1045-1046 (10th Cir.1981). Rather, we have consistently recognized that such criteria `must play some role' in certain management decisions and accordingly have reviewed the use of subjective factors on a case-by-case basis. Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1195 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting Pitre v. W. Elec. Co., 843 F.2d 1262, 1272 (10th Cir.1988)). Though there is certainly a level of subjectivity in any interview-based selection process, interviewers do not always use[ ] their discretion as a means for unlawful discrimination. Santana v. City and County of Denver, 488 F.3d 860, 866 (10th Cir.2007) (emphasis added). We thus typically infer pretext ... only when the criteria on which the employers ultimately rely are entirely subjective in nature. Jones, 349 F.3d at 1267-68 (emphasis added). Here, the criteria PSCo used to rate interviewees were not excessively subjective for several reasons. First, each applicant answered the same questions, and the interviewers ranked the applicants' responses using predetermined criteria from PSCo's Interview Guide. See Santana, 488 F.3d at 866 (finding that though the interview process at issue was subjective, it was not discriminatory in part because [t]he panelists asked every applicant the same three questions and then ranked the candidates based on their responses); see also Bauer, 647 F.2d at 1043 (the standards from which the selection committee made a choice were written down and in that sense were objective). Second, the questions inquired into job-related areas, or competencies, such as the interviewee's technical orientation, team building skills, communication skills, and willingness to learn. These competencies were mandatory considerations for PSCo's interviewers. The interviewers thus were not given discretion to determine the scope of the interviews, and Turner points to no evidence suggesting the interviewers injected their own additional subjective criteria into the evaluation process. See Riggs v. AirTran Airways, Inc., 497 F.3d 1108, 1121 (10th Cir.2007) (in determining the subjectivity of an employee investigation, the important question is whether the plaintiff's supervisor had unfettered discretion). In this light, the competencies cannot be considered wholly subjective, as Turner contends, merely because they cannot be precisely quantified. See Pippin v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 440 F.3d 1186, 1195 (10th Cir.2006) (because the employer used an evaluation form that included multiple mandatory areas for evaluation, the evaluation process was not wholly subjective even though these evaluation areas related to soft skills). Third, even to the extent the questions did not elicit measurable data, the interview process required the interviewees to think on their feet and thereby supply insight as to adaptability and trainability. Cf. id. (though an evaluation process included such subjective considerations as team building, personal leadership, and personal accountability, the process was not wholly subjective). PSCo sought to mold new hires into effective Plant Specialist C workers, and believed the preselected competencies were important indicators of a candidate's likelihood of succeeding in the position. Thus, the interview questions and the candidates' agility in responding to identical inquiries were relevant to the candidates' qualifications; the evaluations made by the interview panels were not based on whims or unguided opinions. Nor does the fact that Turner's interview panel consisted of four men raise any concerns. Turner proffered no evidence that any of the interviewers held discriminatory attitudes or participated in past discrimination. Cf. Pitre, 843 F.2d at 1272. Furthermore, Turner admitted in deposition testimony that she performed poorly during the interview. She said, for example, she was definitely befuddled and felt like [she] struggled during the entire thing. Aplt.App. Vol. II at 202-203 (Turner Dep. Tr. 47:22, 49:4-7). These admissions confirm the interviewers' assessmentswhich placed Turner second-to-last among all the intervieweesand undermine Turner's claim her male interviewers' evaluations were based on her sex rather than her interview performance. See Santana, 488 F.3d at 866 (The interviewers thought, and Santana agreed, that she did not present herself as a strong candidate....). The only other woman applicant, of course, performed well in the interviews and received a job offer. Thus, considering the record as a whole, no reasonable jury could agree with Turner's assertion that the interview serve[d] only as a device to exclude women, Aplt. Br. at 24, or that PSCo's interview process was wholly subjective and therefore pretextual. Cf. Pippin, 440 F.3d at 1195 (analyzing an employee evaluation process and concluding that it was not wholly subjective).