Opinion ID: 3037066
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Teaching Experience

Text: Sarmiento has also failed to cast doubt on the legitimacy of MSU’s other nondisciminatory rationale, which addressed his lack of relevant teaching experience. Although Sarmiento indicated in his cover letter that he had seventeen years of experience teaching introductory and upper-level courses in biological anthropology at the university level and had experience supervising masters theses, MSU correctly noted that he had not taught an undergraduate course in anthropology since 1988 and had not taught a university course since 1997. In contrast, all three finalists indicated in their applications that they were teaching at colleges or universities at the time they applied for the position in 2001. MSU also explained that Sarmiento’s application did not indicate indication from that document or from anything else in the record that the hiring committee could not or did not consider those preferences when evaluating whether a qualified applicant should advance in the hiring process. 10 that he was qualified to teach a course in human variation, medical anthropology, or related areas. Furthermore, Franke testified that the hiring committee believed that Sarmiento’s statement in his cover letter citing his experience teaching masters-level courses in surgery and anatomy and supervising masters theses that addressed solutions to third-world medical and surgical problems did not closely fit the needs of the department. Sarmiento suggests that the university’s reasons for discounting his teaching experience are suspect because the three finalists also lacked experience in teaching all or some of the courses listed in the position announcements, did not have seventeen years’ teaching experience, and presented no evidence that they had taught or supervised graduate students. However, we find nothing inappropriate in MSU’s analysis of the teaching experience of the candidates. It is undisputed that MSU did not require applicants to show a specific type of teaching experience in order to qualify for the position; the long position announcement merely stated that the successful candidate should be prepared to carry out the listed teaching and supervisory responsibilities. MSU explained that Sarmiento’s teaching record was not viewed favorably when compared with the more germane research and teaching experience of the three finalists, and we do not believe the record contains evidence suggesting that this nondiscriminatory explanation is so plainly wrong that it cannot have been a factor in MSU’s decision not to interview Sarmiento. See Keller, 130 F.3d at 1109. C. Spoliation 11 Sarmiento further argues that he is entitled to a spoliation inference based on MSU’s loss or destruction of documentary evidence pertaining to the hiring process, including the written notes of the hiring committee and portions of Farnum’s application materials. MSU claims that it destroyed the hiring committee notes pursuant to departmental policy shortly after the position was filled. Sarmiento believes that these notes might have indicated that he was rated higher than the finalists in the categories of job fit and teaching experience. We agree with the District Court that, even if Sarmiento could satisfy the elements of a spoliation claim with regard to the hiring committee notes, MSU would still be entitled to summary judgment. While these missing documents might have been relevant to his Title VII claim, we are not persuaded that the absence of this evidence creates a genuine issue as to pretext. The Second Circuit has acknowledged that “[i]n borderline [Title VII] cases, an inference of spoliation, in combination with ‘some (not insubstantial) evidence’ for the plaintiff's cause of action, can allow the plaintiff to survive summary judgment.” Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 107 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 128 (2d Cir. 1998)). We believe the District Court correctly acknowledged that this is not a borderline case. Given that Sarmiento has failed to cast meaningful doubt on any of the core facts underlying the nondiscriminatory rationale proffered by MSU, we believe that any inference that the university destroyed the committee notes with a view towards concealing unlawful discrimination would be highly speculative. As for the missing 12 application materials, we agree with the District Court that these documents are of marginal relevance and their absence does not create a genuine issue of material fact.4 D. Exclusion of Expert Report Sarmiento also challenges the District Court’s refusal to consider a report prepared by Dr. Ralph Holloway of the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University. In the report, Holloway conducted a detailed analysis of the relative credentials of Sarmiento and the three finalists and opined that “there is no clear objective reason as to why Dr. Sarmiento was not brought in to interview for the . . . position at [MSU], why the other three candidates brought in to interview were rated above him, and why he was not offered the position.” The District Court determined that the report did not comply with FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e) because it was unsworn, not in the form of an affidavit, and gave no indication that Holloway was competent to render an opinion on the matters discussed in the report.5 Sarmiento argues on appeal that the District Court should have given him an 4 Sarmiento also cites to what he perceives as other irregularities in the hiring process. For instance, he alleges that none of the finalists met all the qualifications specified in the position announcements and that portions of Franke’s deposition testimony are materially inconsistent with statements made by MSU in its initial report to the EEOC. We believe the District Court gave due consideration to these allegations and properly concluded that they lacked an adequate factual basis. To the extent there is record support for any of the other minor discrepancies cited by Sarmiento, we agree with the District Court that their combined impact is negligible when viewed in light of the record as a whole. 5 Approximately twenty-one days after the District Court issued its order granting summary judgment, Sarmiento filed a motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) in which he requested that the District Court reconsider its exclusion of Holloway’s report. He argued that his failure to comply with Rule 56(e) was due to excusable neglect, and he attempted to cure the defect in the submission by attaching a copy of Holloway’s curriculum vitae, 13 opportunity to cure the defect in his submission out of deference to his pro se status. He also points out that MSU never objected to Holloway’s report on Rule 56(e) grounds. We need not address whether the District Court improperly denied Sarmiento an opportunity to amend his submission to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(e) because, for substantially the reasons given in the District Court’s letter opinion dated September 4, 2007, we do not believe that the contents of the report are relevant to the question of whether summary judgment was properly granted. As the District Court explained, Holloway merely offered his own subjective assessment as to how MSU should have evaluated the credentials of the candidates under the screening criteria and did not even acknowledge, let alone criticize, MSU’s explanation why it viewed Sarmiento as a weaker candidate than the three finalists. While the report might suggest that MSU acted imprudently by choosing not to interview Sarmiento, it does not reasonably support an inference that the rationale articulated by MSU is unworthy of credence.