Opinion ID: 6536842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantial Evidence Supporting The Commission's Determination

Text: Ross argues that Rudd's use of the nickname Black Magic reflects racial animus that, when considered together with flaws in the hiring process and other evidence of discrimination by the Railroad, demonstrates Ross was not hired because of his race. Ross disputes Rudd's testimony that the nickname reflected Ross's magical ability with trains rather than racial prejudice, pointing to the term's negative association with Satanism and devil-worship. Ross suggests that, even if not explicitly prejudicial, the term's racial reference and connotations should be considered circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent. The Railroad responds by invoking the ALJ's conclusion that Rudd credibly testified he had not intended Black Magic to be derogatory based on widespread use of nicknames in the railyard and his ceasing use of the nickname when Ross asked. The Railroad concedes that Black Magic may be considered circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent along with other evidence, but it concludes that, even so, it would not make unreasonable the ALJ's finding that Ross was not denied the trainmaster position because of discrimination.  The ALJ found that [b]ased on the testimony, the use of th[e] name, while racial, was not intended to be derogatory. But the ALJ also noted: Although not intended as derogatory, reasonable people could view the nickname as derogatory. This is especially true in light of the testimony that racial epithets had been used at the [Railroad] in the not-so-distant past. Mr. Rudd's use of this term may reflect a conscious or unconscious bias, and the apparent acceptance of his use of this term by others may reflect a more general conscious or unconscious discriminatory attitude that could have spilled over into the interview process. The ALJ concluded that the nickname may be circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory attitude and will be considered in conjunction with the entire record. The ALJ did not discount that the nickname might be probative of discrimination, concluding only that it did not necessarily establish discrimination in the decision not to hire Ross and had to be considered in light of other evidence. This essentially is how Ross argues that it should be considered, although he seems to believe the ALJ should have found the intent behind using the nickname was necessarily prejudicial. The substantial evidence test is highly deferential, but we still review the entire record to ensure that the evidence detracting from the agency's decision is not dramatically disproportionate to the evidence supporting it such that we cannot 'conscientiously' find the evidence to be 'substantial.'  19 We do not review in isolation whether Black Magic was indicative of racial animus; we instead do what the parties request, namely review the record as a whole, keeping in mind that Black Magic may be probative of discriminatory intent.
Ross also alleges that Flynn harbored racial prejudice against him and that it tainted the hiring process. Ross cites Morrison's email to the Railroad's counsel stating that Flynn had formed an opinion about [Ross] and never let it go. Ross also cites Flynn's explanation during the investigation that one reason he did not want to hire Ross was because Flynn had learned that Ross could not complete the application by computer. Ross infers from this that Flynn likely believed, based on racial stereotypes, that Ross was unintelligent. The ALJ did not address these allegations in its recommendation, although supporting evidence was presented at the administrative hearing. Presumably the ALJ did not find Ross's allegations persuasive, and we do not find that decision necessarily unreasonable. It does not appear that Flynn was asked about his alleged bias during either the investigation or the administrative hearing, and Morrison's third-hand account alone is not necessarily conclusive. And although there may be reason to infer that Flynn's stated concern about Ross's computer skills was disingenuous - one candidate was selected even though he told the panelists his computer skills were not great and he may need some training, and he also had completed the application by hand - Ross offers nothing indicating that Flynn's true motives were discriminatory aside from Morrison's account and a conclusory statement that Flynn must have believed Ross could not complete the application using a computer because of his race.
Ross argues that the hiring panel's explanation that it based its hiring recommendations on enthusiasm should be closely scrutinized because using subjective hiring criteria such as enthusiasm often masks discriminatory intent. Ross asserts that this explanation cannot withstand close scrutiny in light of evidence of racial animus, because enthusiasm was unrelated to the job qualifications for trainmaster or the interview questionnaire the panel abandoned, and because panelists' testimony regarding Ross's interview demeanor contrasted with their testimony that he was normally outgoing and animated. Ross notes that some panelists knew of his long tenure with the Railroad - including his experience in what he considered to  be the comparable yardmaster position - but that they failed to share this information, and he also notes that the panel did not review personnel records. The Railroad responds that interview performance constituted a legitimate basis for recommending whom to hire into a non-union, supervisory position, where seniority was not determinative. The Railroad argues that using enthusiasm as a cover for discrimination would require an unlikely conspiracy among panelists and that the panel's decision not to recommend three white candidates because of poor interview performances indicates it instead based its decisions on interview performance. The Railroad further argues that evidence shows the panelists agreed Ross performed poorly in his interview and that he was not recommended for that reason. The ALJ found the panelists' testimony regarding hiring criteria persuasive because, although subjective, enthusiasm for the position served a legitimate business purpose and was related to the job description, especially given the position's supervisory nature. The ALJ found persuasive the panelists' testimony that Ross was not recommended because he failed to show enthusiasm, despite testimony that he normally was outgoing. Ross testified to being annoyed during his interview, and panelists testified that they felt his mention of wanting a higher pension indicated he was solely interested in how the position could benefit him. The Ninth Circuit repeatedly has stated that use of subjective hiring criteria should be closely scrutinized because such use readily can serve as a cover for discrimination. 20 It has favorably cited the Tenth Circuit's observation that subjective criteria such as 'dedicated' and 'enthusiasm' may offer a convenient pretext for giving force and effect to prejudice, and can create a strong inference of employment discrimination. 21 We therefore closely examine the Rail road's use of subjective criteria. Panelists testified that they based their recommendation decisions not just on candidates' enthusiasm for the position but also on their ability to communicate. Ross is incorrect that these criteria were unrelated to the trainmaster qualifications or to the interview questionnaire. The position description listed communication and supervision and control as job responsibilities. A trainmaster's duties include [p]rovid[ing] employees with feedback on specific issues relating to job performance. Given the position's supervisory nature, it makes sense that the position description would place importance on an ability to communicate clearly with subordinates. The interview questionnaire reflected the position description's emphasis on communication. One question read: Good communicating skills are necessary to be an effective supervisor. Describe your communicating skills. The questionnaire further indicated that enthusiasm was an important hiring criterion. For example, one question asked, How will the Alaska Railroad benefit from you being selected for this position? Ross suggests that the panel wholly abandoned the position description and questionnaire, but this was not the case. The panel did not ask all the questions to all the candidates, and it abandoned the grading system because of this and because of a lack of direction on using the grading system. But some panelists made notes serving as a reasonable proxy for grading enthusiasm and ability to communicate. For example, three panelists wrote that Ross said he wanted a better high three for his pension. Three wrote that Ross mentioned his supervisory  experience; two wrote that he said he enjoyed working with people. Two wrote that he said he wanted the position to support his new wife. One wrote that he did not offer a lot of info [and] did not explain in great detail on some of the questions. The panelists' testimony that recommendation decisions were based on interview performance is consistent with an emphasis on enthusiasm and ability to communicate. For example, panelists testified that they felt Ross performed poorly in his interview because he gave short answers, which did not convey his desire to become trainmaster, and because he appeared to feel entitled to the position. Ross discounts this testimony because several panelists knew him to be normally outgoing, but at the hearing he admitted that he was annoyed when Flynn arrived late to the interview, which may well have affected Ross's demeanor. Regardless, panelists testified that they were concerned with candidates' enthusiasm for the trainmaster position, not whether they were generally outgoing or animated. We find unpersuasive Ross's arguments that panelists who knew of his long tenure with the Railroad and his yardmaster experience should have shared this information and that the panelists should have consulted personnel records. Ross essentially suggests that the panel should have decided whom to recommend based on candidates' experience. But as the ALJ observed, the trainmaster position was supervisory and non-union; mere tenure was not determinative. And the ALJ found credible the testimony that the new trainmaster and former yardmaster positions materially differed and that Ross failed to inform the panel of relevant aspects of his experience. Although Ross testified that he stressed his experience in his interview, we generally defer to the fact finder's credibility determinations when reviewing administrative adjudications for substantial evidence. 22 We therefore conclude that the ALJ's finding that the hiring criteria were not pretext for discrimination is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ also discounted the possibility that racial animus might have played a part in the panel's decision not to recommend Ross because any one panelist's prejudices were unlikely to influence the four other panelists. The Railroad urges us to adopt this position, arguing that accepting Ross's claim requires finding a conspiracy between panelists to use lack of enthusiasm as a cover for discrimination. But this is not necessarily the case. It is possible that the panel intended to base its recommendation decisions on some combination of enthusiasm, communication, and interview performance; that it decided not to recommend Ross for discriminatory reasons; and that it then used the criteria as a post-hoc rationalization for its decision. Such a scenario would not necessitate a conspiracy. Rudd, whose use of the nickname Black Magic may be probative of racial prejudice, was the Anchorage terminal superintendent and would have supervised Ross had he been hired as trainmaster. Other panelists may have deferred to Rudd's judgment on which candidates to recommend; if for discriminatory reasons Rudd decided that Ross should not be recommended, then the rest of the panel may have gone along. Ross's non-recommendation might have been based on discrimination, even if the majority of the panel had no discriminatory intent. Enthusiasm, communication, and interview performance being post-hoc rationalizations for not selecting Ross finds some support in the fact that, although the Railroad stated it did not hire Ross and three white candidates because of poor interview performance, only interview notes for the three white candidates clearly indicated significantly poor performance. Rudd's and another panelist's notes included evaluations of candidates' interview performance. Rudd described one white candidate as a poor interview, another as not a chance - poor, and the third as didn't answer half of our questions - not a candidate. The other panelist described one white candidate as not a strong personality; that candidate cried throughout [the]  interview. Yet neither Rudd nor the other panelists made any similarly striking notes about Ross's interview performance. If Ross interviewed so poorly that the panelists decided not to recommend him for that reason, one would expect to find interview notes similar to those for the other candidates not hired because of poor interview performance. Other than one panelist's notes that Ross [d]id not offer a lot of info[,] did not explain in great detail on some of the questions, panelists' notes contain no express indication of Ross's alleged poor communication or sense of entitlement that they later testified were reasons for not recommending him. Panelists' focus on Ross's desire for a better high three, both in interview notes and testimony, is suspect. An African-American former employee testified that during an interview for a position similar to trainmaster, an interviewer accused him of being interested only in earning his high three. He testified that the interviewer later told him that he should not get the raise that came with the promotion. Rudd also interviewed that former employee and may have made a comment implying the employee was too lazy for the job, although the employee conceded that someone else may have made the comment. Despite being circumstantial, Rudd's involvement in the hiring process for both positions and alleged similar concern about the benefits accruing from a promotion - particularly concern about high three - suggest that panelists' invocation of Ross's sense of entitlement may have been tainted by racial animus. And the Railroad's denial of promotion benefits to African-American employees is supported by Ross's testimony that when he became yardmaster an attempt was made to give his evening-shift differential to a white employee, because they sa[id] that he was doing more [of] the work than I was. That white employee was Rudd.
Ross also argues that the Railroad's decision to leave trainmaster positions open rather than hire him, despite his having more years of experience than any other candidate and being the only candidate to have served in the allegedly similar yardmaster position, demonstrates discriminatory intent. The Railroad responds by citing the ALJ's recommendation that Ross's experience was not particularly relevant given the differences between the former yardmaster and new trainmaster positions and the trainmaster position's merit-based nature. The Railroad further stresses that Ross's tenure was not significantly longer than that of the four candidates selected for Anchorage trainmaster positions. Although Ross had the longest tenure with the Railroad, it was not significantly longer than the tenure of other candidates. Compared to Ross's 36 years with the Railroad, most candidates - including those not selected - had worked there for 20 to 30 years. The four candidates hired as Anchorage trainmasters had been with the Railroad for a long time - one for 22 years, two for 29 years, and one for 30 years. Ample evidence supports the ALJ's findings that the position was merit based and that longevity with the Railroad was not a major factor in the hiring decisions. Even assuming Ross's three years in the former yardmaster position distinguished his experience, his qualifications were not clearly superior to those of other candidates - the ALJ found credible the testimony that the new trainmaster and the former yardmaster positions differed. The ALJ also found credible the testimony that Ross failed to inform the panel of relevant aspects of his experience and how he qualified for the new trainmaster position.
Ross briefly argues that the absence of any African-American managers in the transportation division augments the other evidence that the Railroad discriminated against him. The Railroad observes that the ALJ expressly discounted the significance of this fact, stating that [w]ithout more information, it is impossible to determine whether the lack of minority supervisors is an anomaly that suggests discrimination, or the result of insufficient minority applicants. Therefore, the unexplained dearth of minority supervisors is of little, if any, probative or persuasive  value. The Railroad stresses that this passage relies on U.S. Supreme Court precedent indicating the importance of statistical comparisons to establishing a pattern of discrimination. There is some evidence that the absence of minorities in management is attributable to discrimination. Ross testified that when he had been yardmaster, an apparently white employee Ross had been training was promoted into a management position for which Ross had applied. An African-American former employee testified to being turned down for a position for racially suspect reasons. Still, this evidence is anecdotal and certainly not determinative.
Ultimately we review the Commission's decision for substantial supporting evidence in light of the whole record. Given the hiring process and use of subjective criteria, considered together with Rudd's use of the nickname Black Magic, Ross's experience, and anecdotal evidence of African-Americans being denied other managerial positions, a fact finder might have determined that intentional or unintentional racial animus prevented Ross from being hired as a trainmaster. But the evidence detracting from the Commission's contrary decision is not dramatically disproportionate to the supporting evidence; 23 we cannot conclude that the ALJ's adopted recommendation necessarily lacked substantial supporting evidence. The ALJ found credible the panelists' testimony about why Ross was not recommended, concluding that it likely was not fabricated and was related to the responsibilities of the trainmaster position. We therefore conclude - based on the appropriate deferential standard of review - that it was not error for the Commission to determine Ross did not establish that the reasons the Railroad offered for not hiring him were pretextual.