Opinion ID: 171316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inconsistent Application of RIF Criteria

Text: Ms. Sanders argues that the Area Managers did not consider RIF criteria uniformly when they were determining employees' rankings within Band C of her affected work group. We have stated that the selective use of RIF criteriato evaluate some employees' potential but not others', for exampleconstitutes limited evidence of pretext. Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1174. The record, however, does not support Ms. Sanders's assertion. SWBT policy, as articulated by the MSG, is to rank employees subject to the RIF (in this case, those falling into Band C) according to their performance, skills, experience, and training. In addition, Mr. McNeely circulated a guide to his Area Managers that listed subsets of the MSG categories. For skills, the guide listed management skills, technical skills, supervisory skills, effectiveness with others, ability to handle a broader scope, and promotional possibility. Id. Mr. McNeely also stated in his affidavit that the skills category included consideration of skills above and beyond those required for the job. Similarly, Area Manager Mike Harris testified that skills would be the things that you had that made you capable of doing your job, [including] any cross-experience that you might have. As to the MSG's other two ranking categories, Mr. McNeely's memo stated that the experience category encompasses NCS and equivalent work experience. The training category includes formal company training and formal technical or trade school. On September 26, 2002, the Area Managers held a meeting and ranked all of the Band C employees in affected work groups. Their ranking decisions were unanimous. Because there is no contemporaneous document detailing the reasons for each employee's particular ranking, Mr. Wootenone of the Area Managers who participated in the ranking meeting provided an affidavit in this case that explained why each employee was ranked higher or lower than Ms. Sanders. For example, the first-ranked employee in Band C in Ms. Sanders's affected work group had been in his engineering position longer than Ms. Sanders, and his skill level was considered to be greater than Ms. Sanders. The second-ranked employee had construction experience and was considered to be more versatile than Ms. Sanders. The sixth-ranked employee had been promoted . . . from his cable splicing technician job. Even though he had not been an engineer as long as Ms. Sanders, he was able to learn his job very quickly due to his outside technical background. His skills were considered to be greater than Ms. Sanders. These explanations are consistent with SWBT's RIF policy, as outlined in both the MSG and the guide provided by Mr. McNeely. Ms. Sanders appears to argue, however, that SWBT did not apply its RIF criteria consistently and uniformly across all of its employees. As evidence, she points out that she had been in an engineering position for more time than at least one person ranked ahead of her in Band C. She thus concludes that SWBT did not consider her tenure when ranking her against that employee. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that SWBT failed to consider her tenure. According to Mr. Wooten's affidavit, she was ranked lower than the other employee because he had an outside construction background and prior supervisory experience. . . . His outside construction background enabled him to independently complete jobs. Ms. Sanders was not as autonomous. Although Ms. Sanders may have been in an engineering position longer than the other employee, an employee's tenure as an engineer was only one of many possible ranking criteria in the MSG categories of performance, skills, experience, and training. We therefore do not agree with Ms. Sanders's position. The descriptors used in Mr. Wooten's affidavit are entirely consistent with the criteria set forth in Mr. McNeely's ranking instructions. This fact distinguishes the present case from Beaird because SWBT's ranking method did not deviate from its stated policy. See Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1173-74. Moreover, Mr. Wooten's affidavit is not evidence that SWBT inconsistently applied the RIF criteria. His affidavit's purpose is merely to illustrate why a specific employee was ranked higher than Ms. Sanders, not to provide a comprehensive list of all the ranking criteria assessed by SWBT's Area Managers. That the affidavit is selective in its detail is no indication that the RIF was similarly selective. Again, this fact distinguishes this case from Beaird. See id. (explaining that selective use of RIF criteria in identifying employees to be laid off is evidence of pretext).