Opinion ID: 171807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comparison to Dr. Jones

Text: In determining whether an employer’s proffered reason for an employment decision is pretextual, “we consider the facts as they appeared to the person making the decision, and we do not second-guess the employer's decision even if it seems in hindsight that the action taken constituted poor business judgment.” Riggs, 497 F.3d at 1119. “The reason for this rule is plain: our role is to prevent intentional discriminatory hiring practices, not to act as a ‘super personnel -15- department,’ second guessing employers’ honestly held (even if erroneous) business judgments.” Young v. Dillon Cos., 468 F.3d 1243, 1250 (10th Cir. 2006). Thus, when comparing candidates for the same position, this court is willing to infer pretext only when “the facts assure . . . that the plaintiff is better qualified than the other candidates for the position.” Jones v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 1260, 1267 (10th Cir. 2003). As the district court noted, Dr. Lee proffered evidence indicating her publications and external letters of review were generally stronger than those of Dr. Jones. As discussed above, however, these were not the only criteria considered in evaluating tenure candidates. It is undisputed that under MCBD policies, extramural funding is another major criterion on which tenure candidates are evaluated. Dr. DiStefano gave unrebutted testimony that he considers extramural funding, with a particular emphasis on funding received as a Principal Investigator after the candidate’s arrival at UCB, in his tenure evaluations. Here, Dr. Lee received approximately $600,000 from new grants as Principal Investigator during her nine-year probationary period, while Dr. Jones received $1,172,641 from new grants as Principal Investigator during his eight-year probationary period. 3 Consequently, this court cannot say the facts assure Dr. Lee 3 Dr. Lee contends there is no indication in Dr. Jones’s dossier as to whether he was the Principal Investigator on his grants. Defendants, however, presented the undisputed testimony of Dr. Distefano that he was aware Dr. Jones was the Principal Investigator on his grants because when, as in the case of Dr. Jones, a (continued...) -16- was better qualified than Dr. Jones to receive tenure. Id. at 1268 (stating no inference of pretext existed where other candidates had “rational basis advantages” over the plaintiff).