Opinion ID: 2722688
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts Regarding the GDCP

Text: Ms. Tabor alleged that “the GDCP was the employment practice responsible for the alleged disparate impact.” Aplt. App., Vol. V at 1574. The district court found that the “GDCP tracks different aspects of an employee’s readiness to promote, and is made up of two components: the Performance Management Process (‘PMP’) and the Strategic Management Development (‘SMD’) process.” Id. at 1570-71. Under the PMP, a Hilti manager evaluates an employee’s past performance and sets her goals going forward. The SMD process includes ratings assessing an employee’s mobility (M-rating) and her promotability (P-rating). For example, an M1-D rating means the employee is “[r]eady to move anywhere domestically.” Id. at 1572. An employee with a P1 rating is considered “[r]eady for next development step within 12 months.” Id. The court further found that “The Red Thread Dimensions are Hilti’s ‘core values’ that run through everything in the organization and its employee -6- management.” Id. at 1573 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Red Thread Dimensions consist of six criteria: “Understanding and Defining what need[s] to be done,” “Getting things done,” “Working with Others,” “Developing Yourself & Others,” “Functional Expertise,” and “Understanding the Business.” Id. These dimensions “are interwoven into both components of the GDCP[:] the PMP and SMD processes.” Id. at 1574. They are also “interwoven into the interview process. Interviewers rate a candidate on a scale of 1-5 based on the interviewer’s judgment of whether the candidate meets or exceeds the criteria for successful job performance within each of the dimensions.” Id. (citation omitted). Importantly, the district court also found that “[t]he SMD process identifies employees who are interested in promotional opportunities within Hilti,” and that “[t]he output of the SMD process is a ‘pool’ or list of employees used as a management tool to track employees interested in promotions.” Id. at 1571. The court further found that “[t]he potential candidates on the SMD list must interview and compete for future jobs. Thus, the promotional process for prospective Account Managers involves both the GDCP and a separate interview process. The SMD process and the interview process are different processes.” Id. (citation omitted). b. Facts Regarding Ms. Tabor’s Statistical Analysis The district court noted that Ms. Tabor’s expert analysis found “a statistically significant (at a 95% confidence level) disparate impact based on sex when reviewing Account Managers hired [during the relevant time periods] compared to the proxy -7- feeder group [of all Base Market employees].” Id. at 1579. But as we discuss below, the district court did not credit this testimony. c. Facts Regarding Ms. Tabor The district court found that Ms. Tabor worked for Hilti in customer service positions beginning in January 2006. As of April 2007, she had expressed an interest in becoming a customer service Team Leader. She was rated a P1 under the SMD process at that time. During the third quarter of 2007, Ms. Tabor decided she wanted to pursue promotion to an Account Manager position. She applied to be an Account Manager in the fall of 2007, and interviewed for jobs located in two different cities in November of that year. Three candidates were interviewed—two women and one man. The other candidates were both offered Account Manager positions; Ms. Tabor was not. Ms. Tabor’s PMP review dated January 31, 2008, indicated she was mobile with a geographic preference for five states. Her review predicted that she would be an Account Manager by the first or second quarter of 2008. Ms. Tabor resigned from Hilti effective April 5, 2008.