Opinion ID: 5127296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Diﬀerential Treatment Based on Age

Text: Even if Buysse was a suitable comparator during the phone-interview stage, there is no evidence that Bruce or Norris discriminated against Reinebold because of his age. Reinebold takes issue with the hiring committee’s use of subjective criteria. He claims that because he had more coaching experience than Buysse, he should have gotten the position. No. 21-1092 7 But his argument is a nonstarter. We have never held that an employer must score a job interview according to objective criteria. See Blise v. Antaramian, 409 F.3d 861, 868 (7th Cir. 2005). Moreover, Reinebold fails to address the fact that the position for head baseball coach at IUSB required more than a win-loss record. Indeed, according to IUSB’s job posting, coaching was only one of the listed primary duties and responsibilities for the position. The committee liked what they heard from Buysse during his phone interview and extended him an oﬀer to interview in person. The committee also extended that oﬀer to four other individuals. Reinebold, on the other hand, had a poor phone interview, which led the entire committee to unanimously agree to end Reinebold’s candidacy for the position. The committee’s use of subjective criteria was appropriate. Cf. Blise, 409 F.3d at 868 (“A subjective analysis of the varying traits of each applicant is entirely appropriate.”). Reinebold, however, argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Bruce and Norris because the district court impermissibly weighed two pieces of evidence: (1) the testimony of witness C.W., and (2) a note from a hiring committee member, which read, “Looking for a retirement job.” A district court judge “may not make credi- bility determinations, weigh the evidence, or decide which inferences to draw from the facts” when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003). We take each in turn and ﬁnd that the district court judge did not impermissibly weigh either piece of evidence. First, Reinebold’s attempts to classify the district court’s analysis of C.W.’s testimony as a credibility determination or 8 No. 21-1092 an improper inference from the facts are inapt. During the hiring process, Norris conversed with his barber, C.W., about IUSB’s search for a new head baseball coach. During the ﬁrst occasion, Norris mentioned that IUSB was looking for a new head baseball coach, and he discussed who the candidates were with C.W., including mentioning the candidates by name. On the second occasion, Norris mentioned that IUSB had hired Buysse for the position. Norris relayed that he was excited about hiring Buysse because he was a “younger guy and would be a better ﬁt for the kids ….” Appellant’s App. at 32. C.W. did not recall Norris “saying anything about age, a number.” Id. at 33. In fact, it was C.W.’s opinion that Norris hired Buysse because Norris knew Buysse and Norris coached with him. See id. C.W. also testiﬁed that Norris “never once just came back and told us he didn’t hire [Reinebold] because he was this age and he was too old or anything, no, he didn’t.” Id. at 34. The district court correctly concluded that Norris's comment to his barber that they had hired the younger guy was merely a description of the candidate, and could not reasonably be construed as a description of the reason he was hired. In short, Norris's comment to C.W. is at best a stray remark describing the candidate, not a description of why Buysse was hired over Reinebold. See Cullen v. Olin Corp., 195 F.3d 317, 323 (7th Cir. 1999) (“‘[A] statement must relate to the motivation of the decision-maker responsible for the contested decision[,]’ and isolated comments that amount to no more than ‘stray remarks’ will not suﬃce.” (second alteration in original) (citation omitted) (citing Randle v. LaSalle Telecomms., Inc., 876 F.2d 563, 569 (7th Cir. 1989))). No. 21-1092 9 Furthermore, Reinebold does not address the fact that Norris was only one of the committee members responsible for deciding whom the committee would recommend to Bruce for the position. Norris alone was unable to make the decision not to hire Reinebold. Indeed, the entire committee unanimously voted to terminate Reinebold’s candidacy after his phone interview. Reinebold’s age never came up in that decision. Second, Reinebold’s attempt to create an issue of material fact regarding a remark in the notes of one of the committee members—“Looking for a retirement job”—is similarly inapt. During the phone-interview stage, a committee member by the name of Scott Cooper took notes on each candidate he interviewed. One of the comments by Reinebold’s name read: “Looking for a retirement job.” R. 46-2 at 17. Reinebold argues that the district court discounted Cooper’s note and that a reasonable jury could draw an inference that the phrase “[l]ooking for a retirement job” showed that the committee was conscious of Reinebold’s age. But Reinebold’s assertion is purely speculative. Cooper stated under oath that he did not use age as a factor in the hiring decision—so too did the other committee members. Reinebold also does not point to any evidence showing that Cooper shared his notes with other members of the hiring committee. Moreover, Cooper’s note was next to other notes describing Reinebold’s phone interview, such as: “Doesn’t know how to deal with professors”; “Has no plan to develop kids”; “Thinks it[’s] a good opportunity, but can’t say why”; and “Doesn’t have a well thought philosophy.” Id. These notes are indicative of the reason Reinebold was eliminated as a candidate after his phone interview. Namely, Reinebold’s 10 No. 21-1092 poor performance during his phone interview was the reason he was not hired as IUSB’s head baseball coach—not his age. Thus, Reinebold has not shown that Bruce or Norris discriminated against him because of his age. See Cole v. Bd. of Trs. of N. Ill. Univ., 838 F.3d 888, 900 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Simply being a member of a protected class, without something more to link that status to the action in question, is not enough to raise a reasonable inference of discriminatory animus.”).