Opinion ID: 2980714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discretionary Score Adjustments

Text: On her second argument of pretext, Baldwin contends that Corcoran arbitrarily and discriminatorily added and removed points from Baldwin’s and Heckler’s base scores, further increasing the gap between the two candidates. Baldwin is correct that Corcoran reduced her score by three points for declining performance appraisals and raised Heckler’s score by thirteen points, three for her experience serving as a temporary GS-13 and ten for being in the process of completing Air Command and Staff College. Nevertheless, these adjustments do not show discrimination. Although Baldwin appropriately observes that a purely discretionary determination made apart from and irrespective of objective criteria might not be reasonably construed as a “legitimate business purpose” for an employer’s adverse employment action, that principle does not apply here. First, the additional criteria used by Corcoran to adjust the candidates’ base scores, while not preprinted on the score sheet itself, reflected legitimate considerations in Corcoran’s decision, e.g., weighing candidates’ past performance and considering relevant experience serving as a GS-13. More importantly, the adjustments were irrelevant to the outcome of the competition. Heckler’s score was higher than Baldwin’s at the base and adjusted levels. Accordingly, even if Corcoran’s modifications were inappropriate, they had no bearing on Baldwin’s non-promotion.