Opinion ID: 1016004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: McKie and Lockhart

Text: While both McKie and Lockhart may have established a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, neither has presented sufficient evidence to rebut the USPS's proof that it had a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision not to promote him. Specifically, the USPS asserts that McKie was passed over in favor of a white applicant because Barnhill's evaluation of the two applicants reflected the fact that the white applicant had background experience in the electronics field, which made him a better candidate for the position. While McKie notes that Barnhill did not have much of an opportunity to observe either applicant on the job, McKie has not presented any evidence that it was against USPS policy for supervisors to take into account an applicant's background experience when evaluating him. Even though McKie may -16- have possessed the skills necessary for the position, that fact does not undermine the USPS's conclusion that the other applicant possessed superior skills. Similarly, the USPS met its burden of producing evidence that Lockhart was denied supervisor positions at the Greenwood and Taylor facilities for legitimate reasons. Glinski, the postmaster responsible for making the final promotion decision at the Greenwood facility, testified that he chose the white candidate over Lockhart because the white employee performed better during his interview. To support his claim that this reason for denying him the position at the Greenwood facility was pretextual, Lockhart points to the subjective nature of some of the interview questions and notes that Glinski did not actually record the candidates' answers. But such evidence, even when combined with Lockhart's prima facie case, would not enable a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Lockhart was discriminated against. First, the proportion of subjective questions asked during the interviews was too small to account for the vast discrepancy between the interview scores of Lockhart and the other applicant — 44.3% correct versus 96.7% correct. Second, the fact that Glinski did not specifically record the candidates' interview answers does not tend to show that he lied about their performances or that he ultimately chose the white candidate over Lockhart because of Lockhart's race. -17- Explaining the decision not to interview Lockhart for the position at the Taylor facility, one of the review panel members testified that, based on the candidates' applications, Lockhart was less qualified than five other applicants. Lockhart responded to that evidence by claiming that he had a more extensive educational background than any of the candidates that were chosen to be interviewed for the position. But Lockhart failed to rebut the USPS's evidence that the interviews were granted, not on the basis of the candidates' educational achievements, but on the basis of their answers to questions on their applications that asked the applicants to describe situations demonstrating their knowledge and abilities in particular skills areas. In short, neither McKie nor Lockhart introduced sufficient evidence to create a factual question as to whether he was denied a promotion by reason of his race.