Opinion ID: 782711
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged retaliatory refusal to promote to Vacancy 93-01

Text: 37 In 1993, prior to his application to fill Vacancy 93-01, Terry filed a complaint with the EEO regarding his unsuccessful application for promotion to Vacancy 92-59, charging that Adams was unqualified for the job. The district court found that Terry produce[d] no evidence that any of the selecting officials who denied him promotion to Vacancy 93-01 were aware of the [previously filed] EEO complaint .... However, on a memorandum to Slattery listing the Best Qualified Candidates, on which is written each candidate's age and gender, there is also a note indicating Pending Complaint by Terry's name and a note indicating EEO Activity by the name of another applicant who was denied promotion. Defendants do not provide any explanation for these notations, and there is an open factual question as to when and by whom they were made. The presence of such notations is evidence from which a reasonable trier-of-fact could infer that Terry's Pending Complaint was a motivating factor in the promotion decision, particularly when coupled with evidence that other INS employees who reported problems experienced retaliation. 38 The district court found that even if Terry had made out a prima facie case, his claim would fail nevertheless because defendants had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting him: that the other candidates were better qualified. However, the wholly unexplained presence of the notations EEO action and pending complaint on the list of candidates is sufficient — especially given the evidence of a pattern of retaliatory action in the agency — to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the pretextual nature of defendants' rationale. Moreover, Terry has put forth sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that not all of the candidates selected were in fact better qualified. For example, one of the selectees received a lower ranking on the candidates ranking form for Vacancy 93-01 than Terry did. 12 Accordingly, summary judgment was improper on Terry's retaliation claim based on his non-promotion to Vacancy 93-01. 39