Opinion ID: 2995041
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guerrero’s Evaluations

Text: The FBI asserts six business reasons explaining why it opted not to promote Guerrero: (1) the OC-3 position prioritized street skills above administrative skills like those Guerrero possessed; (2) Guerrero lacked pertinent leadership experience; (3) Guerrero lacked recent drug investigation experience; (4) Guerrero lacked recent relief supervisor experience; (5) Guerrero lacked recent experience withsophisticated investigatory techniques; and (6) Guerrero overstated his success in the forfeitures program. Guerrero discounts these reasons as pretext. To prevail, Guerrero must raise triable issues of fact as to all six rationales because the FBI needs but one legitimate reason for its decision not to promote Guerrero. See Mills v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 171 F.3d 450, 459 (7th Cir. 1999). Creating a triable pretext issue with indirect evidence is a difficult task which may be accomplished in one of two ways. The plaintiff must show either that the employer lied about why it opted not to promote him, see Reeves, 120 S. Ct. at 2108-09, or that the employer’s reasons have no basis in fact. See Velasco v. Illinois Dep’t of Human Services, 246 F.3d 1010, 1017 (7th Cir. 2001); Jordan v. Summers, 205 F.3d 337, 343 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Guerrero wisely uses both available options. Guerrero’s arguments boil down to two theories: (1) that the FBI lied about its reasons because after seeking applicants with administrative experience, it conveniently emphasized the operational nature of the OC-3 position when evaluating the candidates; and (2) that the Career Board’s egregious mischaracterization of Guerrero’s operational experience both lacks a basis in fact and evidences that even the FBI could not have believed its own evaluation. There is a fundamental disagreement between Guerrero and the FBI regarding whether the OC-3 position emphasized administrative or operational skills. Quoting the job description, Guerrero argues that administrative skills were paramount, while the FBI argues operational skills were more important. Reviewing the job description in the light most favorable to Guerrero, it is clear that the job demanded both administrative and operational skills. That the FBI eventually based its promotion decision on the candidates’ operational skills, specifically those listed in the job description, is legitimate. Further, we cannot conclude that the Career Board and SAC did not take the candidates’ administrative skills into account. A reasonable trier of fact could not find pretext based on the FBI’s operational focus. Guerrero next contends that the Career Board mischaracterized his operational experience so egregiously, especially in comparison to its evaluation of the other candidates, that it is impossible for the its evaluation to be based in fact or for the Career Board or SAC to sincerely believe it. Specifically, Guerrero challenges as pretextual the Career Board’s conclusion that his drug investigation experience, leadership skills, sophisticated investigatory tech niques and relief supervisory experience was limited. As we examine Guerrero’s evaluation, we are mindful that we are not a super-personnel board, see Bell, 232 F.3d at 550, and that we may not punish an employer for choices that constitute business decisions alone, no matter how unwise or mistaken they may seem to us. See Reeves, 120 S. Ct. at 2108-09; Kulumani v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n, 224 F.3d 681, 685 (7th Cir. 2000); Jordan, 205 F.3d at 343. Rather, Guerrero must provide some evidence that the FBI’s rationale for declining to promote him is a sham or is not based in fact. The Career Board made its recommendation based on application files and interviews. During its evaluations, the FBI placed great emphasis on the recency of the candidates’ skills experience. Guerrero applied for the OC-3 promotion from the mainly administrative position of Forfeiture Coordinator, which made some of his operational skills dated. Guerrero’s leadership experience in this position was mainly administrative, consisting primarily of coordinating office workers rather than agents and coordinating communications between agencies rather than directing investigatory agents. In the forfeiture position, Guerrero did not conduct drug investigations, engage in sophisticated investigatory techniques, or serve as a relief supervisor. In contrast, higher- rated agents Wong and Bourgeois held operational positions in which they used investigatory skills. Guerrero argues that pretext becomes evident when one compares his skill ratings to those of other agents. Guerrero contends that he had comparable, and in some areas, notably drug investigation, more extensive and recent experience than other agents, yet was rated lower. In the drug investigation area, Wong and Casanova had more recent experience than Guerrero and received a better rating. Guerrero points out that Bourgeios’s drug investigation experience was the most dated, yet Bourgeois received a higher rating than Guerrero. The Career Board stated in its explanation of the ratings that it believed some of Bourgeois’s experience investigating organized crime was pertinent to his drug investigatory skills, and took account of it accordingly. We cannot second-guess the appropriateness of this business judgment. Similarly, the Career Board explained its ratings for the other skills categories and we find no evidence of pretext in them. The FBI also claims that it opted not to promote Guerrero because he overstated his success in the Forfeiture Coordinator position. Immediately prior to Guerrero’s appointment as Forfeiture Coordinator, the FBI was prohibited by law from engaging in forfeiture procedures. The Supreme Court made the forfeitures available in 1996, shortly before Guerrero assumed the position of Forfeiture Coordinator. Some Career Board members believed that due to these circumstances, Guerrero exaggerated his role in boosting the FBI’s forfeiture collections. As before, Guerrero does not create an issue of fact regarding whether this perception was based in fact or whether the Career Board members truly believed it. Guerrero also contends that the SAC’s recommendations were suspect and can constitute evidence of pretext. The SAC decided to recommend Wong because Wong was then the relief supervisor for the OC-3 squad. Guerrero notes that neither he nor Casanova received such a preference when they applied to be promoted within the squads they served as relief supervisors. The FBI never guaranteed any the promotion of any relief supervisor. Given that this attri bute is among many the FBI evaluated, it is not surprising that it could genuinely be dispositive in some cases, but not in others. Further, no evidence tends to show that the SAC is lying about his motivation for recommending Wong rather than Guerrero. Because we find no issue as to pretext, we cannot accept Guerrero’s invitation to levy Title VII liability.