Opinion ID: 4460749
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ms. Greer’s Supervisory Experience

Text: The district court concluded that Ms. Hensley had found Ms. Greer ineligible for an interview based on her apparent lack of qualifications, not Dr. McDonnell’s anti-military animus. The new position required at least one year’s supervisory experience in a museum, security environment, or law-enforcement field. See Part I, above. The parties disagree on whether Ms. Greer met this requirement. According to Ms. Greer, she had served as the museum’s security supervisor in charge of the second shift. 4 As supervisor, she had allegedly created schedules, scheduled police officers for events, drafted incident reports, allowed guards to leave early, provided “teaching moments” to other guards, and provided oversight. The defendants argue that Ms. Greer might have been a “shift lead,” but was never a supervisor. Given this factual disagreement, the district court had to determine whether a factfinder could reasonably find that Ms. Greer’s application had shown supervisory experience. If the factfinder could not reasonably find that the application showed supervisory experience, Dr. McDonnell’s anti- 4 Ms. Greer also argues that she had other supervisory experience outside the museum, including supervisory experience in the military. But she did not include this supervisory experience in the application, and Ms. Greer’s military experience arguably didn’t involve work in a museum, security, or law-enforcement environment. We thus assume, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Greer’s supervisory experience in the military would not affect the availability of summary judgment. 12 military animus might not have constituted a motivating factor in Ms. Hensley’s decision. Ms. Greer argues that her application satisfied the job qualifications because she answered “2” for the number of employees supervised. But when describing her job duties, Ms. Greer did not identify any supervisory tasks: Monitors security of property, art works on display. Against theft, fires, and vandalism. Inventory artwork daily and hourly per shift. Able to recognize and report needed repairs to supervisor. Monitor security systems alarms and conditions. Develop and maintain a working relationship with all associates including the public. To communicate clearly and effectively, in person and in writing. Be able to run if needed too [sic]. Move quickly. Appellant’s App’x, vol. II, at 327. In addition, Ms. Greer listed her position title as “Security,” which did not suggest a supervisory role. 5 On the face of her application, Ms. Greer’s supervisory experience was ambiguous. We thus focus on the evidence describing how the City treated applications bearing ambiguities on the applicant’s qualifications. In our view, this evidence creates a genuine factual dispute on the scope of Ms. 5 In the application, Ms. Greer stated that her duties included reporting needed repairs to a supervisor. In oral argument, the defendants argued that this duty shows that Ms. Greer was not a supervisor. We reject this argument because Ms. Greer could have been a mid-level supervisor, overseeing some employees and reporting to others. 13 Hensley’s discretion to advance the application to the interview stage even if the application had been ambiguous. City personnel testified that they compare the number of individuals being supervised with the applicant’s job title and job duties. If the applicant’s duties do not match the number of people supervised, city personnel stated that they consider the individual a “shift lead” rather than a supervisor. But a factfinder could reasonably reject this testimony, for city personnel (Ms. Lisa White and Ms. Susan Leiker) indicated that the Human Resources Department could treat experience as supervisory if an applicant had indicated the number of people supervised without listing supervisory duties. For example, Ms. White testified: Q. And how do you know if the application meets [the job] requirements? Because of the words on the application? A. That’s exactly right. Q. So if, for instance, Anjela Greer says she has supervised two people in her job, as in her existing job with the art museum, that should be taken as supervisory experience? A. Possibly, yes. . . . . Q. I am wondering, we were talking earlier about the words on the application versus the words on the job description. And I thought we had established that if there is a match, then the application is supposed to go through for the interview process 14 so that if there are questions, if there are discrepancies or things that need to be explained, that’s what the interview process is for; true? A. That would be correct. Q. So if Olivia [Hensley] had felt like it, she could have sent the application on and left it up to the interview process. If Patricia [McDonnell] is concerned about what Olivia perceives is a discrepancy, Patricia can ask her about it; true? A. That could have occurred; however, apparently Olivia looked at the duties as described by Anjela and found that the duties did not match supervision. Q. Or Olivia had Patricia leaning on her and decided she’s just not going to clear that application no matter what. . . . . Q. As long as we’re speculating about why Olivia did what she did, that would be another explanation; would it not? A. I can’t say about that. I have no idea. Appellant’s App’x, vol. II, at 320; Appellant’s App’x, vol. IV, at 1006. Given this testimony, a factfinder could reasonably infer that Ms. Hensley had the discretion to consider Ms. Greer’s experience as supervisory. When asked if supervisory experience was shown by Ms. Greer’s answer of “2” for the number of individuals supervised, Ms. White answered: “Possibly, yes.” Then, when asked whether Ms. Hensley could advance Ms. Greer to an interview, Ms. White acknowledged that this advancement “could have occurred.” A factfinder could reasonably infer from Ms. White’s testimony that Ms. Hensley had the discretion to advance 15 Ms. Greer’s application to the interview stage and didn’t do so because of Dr. McDonnell’s anti-military animus. Like Ms. White, Ms. Susan Leiker explained that ambiguities about an applicant’s qualifications could be fleshed out during the interview process: Q. Okay. And can these qualifications then from a procedural standpoint, can these qualifications then be fleshed out in the interview process? A. Certainly. Appellant’s App’x, vol. III, at 664. This testimony also suggests that Ms. Hensley chose to disallow an interview because of Dr. McDonnell’s antimilitary animus rather than Ms. Greer’s lack of supervisory experience. The factfinder could reasonably infer discretion not only from the testimony of Ms. White and Ms. Leiker but also from Ms. Greer’s testimony about Ms. Hensley’s explanation for her decision. 6 When Ms. Greer asked why she wouldn’t get an interview, Ms. Hensley explained that Dr. McDonnell had given “instructions” to leave Ms. Greer in her current job as long as she remained in the military. Appellant’s App’x, vol. II, at 551; see Part IV(A)(2)(a), above. 6 Ms. Greer also argues that the City (1) had the discretion to contact applicants to address ambiguities in their application and (2) exercised that discretion by contacting an applicant for another job to clarify his interest in a full-time position. We need not address these arguments because Ms. Greer’s other evidence suffices to create a genuine dispute of material fact. 16 Given the testimony by Ms. White, Ms. Leiker, and Ms. Greer, a factfinder could reasonably determine that Dr. McDonnell’s anti-military animus was a motivating factor for Ms. Hensley’s decision not to advance Ms. Greer to an interview.