Opinion ID: 5949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: What the Evidence Does Show

Text: 69 Although it does not demonstrate age-based or racial discrimination, the evidence adduced in the instant case does appear to confirm something else of an untoward nature: the perpetuation of what, for lack of a better term, is frequently labeled the good old boy network. Much of the evidence in this case--e.g., the subliminal messages in Strader's recommendations and the fact that after the panel completed its work, Moore (who was supposed to be the final decisionmaker) called Strader and, in effect, allowed him to pick the person he wanted to fill the position--gives us the impression that the decisionmakers were merely going through the motions of the required procedure while in fact ensuring that Strader would get the person he wanted to fill the new position. But even if that impression is correct, it does not amount to racial or age-based discrimination. Again, misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance--without nexus to age or race--is not actionable here. 70 The essence of the Service's explanation concerning why Odom did not receive the subject promotion is that, at the conclusion of its promotion process, Odom was simply not the top-rated candidate. Even though the conduct of the Service's process might not pass the smell test, and might well raise eyebrows, Odom has failed to adduce forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that discriminatory intent motivated the acts or omissions of anyone involved in the promotion process. 71 In St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 28 the Supreme Court recently discussed, at length, the burden of proof applicable to a claim of racial discrimination. 72 The factfinder's disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facia case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons, will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination, 4 and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted that, upon such rejection, [n]o additional proof of discrimination is required. [Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Center ], 970 F.2d at 493 [ (8th Cir.1992) ] (emphasis added). But the Court of Appeals' holding that rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons compels judgment for the plaintiff disregards the fundamental principle of Rule 301 that a presumption does not shift the burden of proof, and ignores our repeated admonition that the Title VII plaintiff at all times bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. 73 Odom has failed as a matter of law to demonstrate race or age discrimination, even though his evidence may be sufficient to bring into question the objectivity of the Service's selection process as administered. But that alone cannot carry the day. III