Opinion ID: 3011972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supervising Engineer

Text: Similarly, Elwell’s claim of discrimination arising out of Defendant’s choice of another candidate for the Supervising Engineer position, which Elwell applied for and was rejected from without having the opportunity to interview, fails due to his failure to rebut the reasons advanced by the Defendant for its hiring choice. Elwell asserted that Douglas Krall, the PP & L employee with hiring authority with respect to this position, could not have known that he lacked the skills the position required because he was never given the opportunity to present his qualifications at an interview. Moreover, Elwell asserts that the job posting for which he tailored the materials he submitted did not indicate that the position required “technical knowledge of energy scheduling and reconciliation, the tariff structure within the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland (PJM) power grid, factors that lead to power flow disruptions, and coordination and drafting of contracts with alternative electric suppliers.” App. at 232, Krall -9- Decl. The District Court properly rejected this argument on the basis that Elwell failed to introduce evidence that age discrimination more likely motivated the hiring choice and failed to demonstrate “such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistences, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them ‘unworthy of credence[.]’” Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Because Elwell did not show that the reasons advanced for the hiring of a candidate possessing the skills sought were a pretext for age discrimination, he failed to carry his burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework and dismissal of his claim regarding the Supervising Engineer position was appropriate.