Opinion ID: 2973168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Entirety of the Circumstances

Text: Plaintiff argues that the sum of the circumstances give rise to an inference that Defendant’s hiring rationale is pretextual. Plaintiff relies heavily on the fact that despite being qualified at the time of her interview, after the ascendancy of Christie, a male, into the hiring position, the minimum qualifications underwent a modification which permitted Brewer, also a male, to qualify for the position when he was previously not deemed qualified. Plaintiff argues that the sequence of events raises a genuine issue of material fact about whether this modification was intended to discriminate against Plaintiff because of her gender. Plaintiff implies that had Carolyn Nellon remained Director of Human Resources, Plaintiff would have been hired and no modification to the qualifications would have been made. Plaintiff makes a myriad of arguments about the timeline of the qualifications modification, the strongest of which lies with the false assertion in the Civil Service Commission staff 16 No. 04-3465 recommendation memorandum that the national recruitment effort had “failed to yield any qualified candidates” for the position. While the Civil Service Commission Executive Director explains that this statement was a result of a miscommunication between departments, the inconsistency is real evidence going to the truth behind the City’s rationale for the qualifications modification. None of Plaintiff’s other issues with the timeline, however, support the contention that the modification was part of a plan to discriminate. The fact that the Health Department was concerned about the removal of the certification requirement does not undermine the Department’s asserted rationale for the modification (to attract a broader array of viable candidates). Neither does Plaintiff present any evidence to counter Defendant’s rationale for the removal of the position discussion at the July 2000 Civil Service Commission meeting (that the matter had been settled). Finally, Plaintiff points to the original modification to the position which would have removed Plaintiff’s eligibility for the position. Plaintiff presents no evidence, however, that Defendant’s explanation for this modification — its misunderstanding that the CSP and CIH certifications required a bachelor’s ab initio — was false. In any event, Defendant revised its modification to the position to include applicants in Plaintiff’s position before reposting the opening.