Opinion ID: 6112077
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Pretext

Text: Plaintiff next argues Defendants’ articulated reasons are pretextual under the general pretext test. For Plaintiff to prove that Defendants’ articulated nondiscriminatory explanations are pretextual, he must prove that they “(1) ha[ve] no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct, or (3) [were] insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.” Provenzano, 663 F.3d at 815 (quotation marks omitted). On appeal, the parties only address three bases for pretext: (1) that Plaintiff lacked “passion” for the position, (2) that Somogyi worked on less sophisticated claims, and (3) that Plaintiff proposed a more creative solution for the Unit Leader position than Zito. Plaintiff first points to Lilly’s comments that he lacked passion for the Unit Leader position. Defendants contend that Lilly’s statement was not pretextual because Plaintiff did not score “the highest” on a motivational fit assessment and he had applied for both leadership and nonleadership roles causing her to question what position he really desired. At least three times during her deposition, Lilly testified that Plaintiff did score the highest on a motivational fit assessment, which meant he had “passion for the job.” (Lilly Dep., R. 49, -22- No. 21-3115, Aday v. Westfield Ins. Co., et al. Page ID # 882–84.) She added that Plaintiff “came in very passionate” for his interview. (Id., Page ID # 884.) Although Lilly stated that Plaintiff’s decision to move from the Auto Unit Leader position to the litigation specialist position demonstrated he lacked passion, Plaintiff has proffered testimony that such reassignment was considered a lateral move rather than a demotion. Lilly also pointed to the fact that Plaintiff had applied for both leadership and non-leadership positions as support for her contention that he lacked passion. However, she testified that Somogyi’s prior position was being terminated and she “applied for everything.” (Lilly Dep., R. 49, Page ID # 797.) Moreover, Plaintiff questions whether “passion” for the Unit Leader position was even a relevant consideration at all. After two decades in the insurance industry, Zito was employed as a property claims adjuster at another insurance company. He spent two years in that position before deciding to leave the insurance industry entirely and became an educator. His stint in education lasted one year before he returned to the insurance industry at Westfield. Thomas Fenlon, Westfield’s Claims Quality Assurance Leader, testified that Plaintiff was the only candidate whose “passion” was questioned. Considering all this, a reasonable juror could conclude that Lilly’s explanation that Plaintiff lacked passion for the Unit Leader position had no basis in fact and was pretextual. Plaintiff next challenges Lilly’s belief that Somogyi “worked with very high-end, difficult claims.” (Lilly Dep., R. 49, Page ID # 838.) This argument can be disposed of easily. Plaintiff claims Somogyi worked predominantly on workers compensation claims and slip-and-fall cases, which were not “very high-end, difficult claims.” (Appellant’s Br. 45.) Plaintiff provides no evidence to support his claim that workers compensation and slip-and-fall cases are not high-end and difficult. Thus, he has not cast any doubt on Lilly’s explanation. -23- No. 21-3115, Aday v. Westfield Ins. Co., et al. Plaintiff’s final argument under the general pretext test is that Zito’s plan for the Unit Leader position was not “more creative” than his. (Lilly Dep., R. 49, Page ID # 882.) Lilly stated that she believed Zito presented a “more creative” plan for the position, specifically noting his intention to use “webinars” instead of travelling to his direct reports three times per month. (Lilly Dep., R. 49, Page ID # 931–32.) Plaintiff claims Lilly misunderstood his presentation, that he did not plan to travel three times per month to visit his direct reports, and that the use of technology and “webinars” to connect with the direct reports was not creative. None of these arguments suggest Defendants’ decision to hire Zito had no basis in fact. Surely, if Plaintiff gave a presentation that left the hiring manager with the impression he would frequently travel and would rely less on technology than the other candidates, that is either his fault or the fault of the hiring manager’s lack of comprehension. In either event, Plaintiff has again not cast any doubt on the veracity of Lilly’s explanation. Plaintiff has cast doubt on some—but not all—of the reasons Defendants articulated for not hiring him. While Lilly’s explanation that he lacked passion for the Unit Leader position arguably has no basis in fact, Plaintiff has failed to cast doubt on Lilly’s subjective beliefs that Somogyi had more relevant experience and Zito presented a more creative plan. Since these are both nondiscriminatory bases for choosing to hire Somogyi and Zito over Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not created a genuine dispute under the general pretext test.