Opinion ID: 46376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: manager in the Project and Programs Division;

Text: Hollaway was a long term employee of the and Peter Shaw, an employee in the Corps’s Corps. She was hired as a GS-9 level social Southwest Division. Laird chaired the panel. scientist in 1979 and rose to the rank of GS-12 in 1984; she remains a GS-12 level employee. The panel received nineteen applications afAfter seeing an advertisement posted in Janu- ter initial screening. Laird instructed the panary 2002 for the position of GS-13 Plan For- elists to evaluate the applications according to mulation Specialist, Hollaway applied for the five criteria: (1) demonstrated expert knowlposition but was not selected. Instead, the sel- edge of procedures and policies associated ection panel chose Robert Heinly, a younger, with navigation, flood control and ecosystem less experienced employee, to fill the role. restoration projects; (2) demonstrated experiHollaway sued under the Age Discrimination ence in providing plan formulation and policy in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. compliance guidance; (3) ability to provide §§ 621 et seq., alleging that she had suffered authoritative advice on water resources planunlawful disparate treatment in the Corps’s ning studies during planning, design and conselection process. See § 623(a)(1); Hazen Pa- struction phases of complex projects; per Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993). Af- (4) demonstrated experience directing matrix ter a two-day bench trial, the district court project delivery planning teams; and (5) demfound that the panel that had evaluated candi- onstrated experience in providing technical redates did not consider applicants’ ages, so the views of plan development, evaluations and court entered a take-nothing judgment. recommendations. The parties agreed that Hollaway was over Each panelist was to score each applicant forty years old at the time of the events in on a twenty-point scale in each category and question and was thus a member of a protect- submit his total scores for each applicant to the ed class under the ADEA. They also agreed rest of the panel; all panelists except Saunders that, in her more than twenty-eight years of complied with this directive. Saunders, for service with the Corps, Hollaway had been an reasons that remain murky, did not submit his exemplary employee who had been nationally scores. The panel then used the scores as a recognized for her planning work and had nev- guideline to establish a rank order of applier been reprimanded. cants qualified for the position. Although the summed raw scores indicated that Hollaway The court found that the Corps had fol- would have been alone in second place, twenty lowed its standard practice in appointing a sel- points ahead of Heinly (who was third), the ection panel to evaluate applications. Appli- panel listed them as tied for second behind cants were first screened for minimum thresh- Robert Van Hook, an older and more experiold qualifications by the Corps’s Civilian Per- enced applicant than was Hollaway. Laird sonnel Operations Center, then referred to the indicated that the ranking was done by conselection panel, which had five members: sensus of the panel rather than strict summaLloyd Saunders, Division Chief for the Plan- tion of the panelists’ raw scores for each ning, Environmental and Regulatory Division; applicant. Richard Medina, Chief of the Planning and En- vironmental Branch; Diana Laird, Chief of the The panel decided to interview the top six Planning Section; Dalton Krueger, a project candidates and to weigh their interview per- 2 formance equally with the panel’s pre-inter- In January2002, the Southwestern Division view evaluation of the qualifications of each of the Corps, in which the selection process applicant. Each candidate was asked a series for the Plan Formulation Specialist position of identical questions in the interview; each in- took place, promulgated its “Emerging Leadterview lasted fifteen to thirty minutes. ers Program” (“ELP”), the object of which was “to provide individuals who have exhib- Following the interviews, the panel ranked ited leadership potential at the GS-09 through the candidates’ interview performances. Hein- GS-12 . . . levels, the opportunity to further ly was ranked second behind Janelle Stokes; develop and refine their leadership skills.” The Hollaway was ranked last. According to panel program was open to employees of all ages. members’ testimony, Hollaway was curt and Heinly was a member of the program, but blunt during her interview; it appeared to the Hollaway was not. panel that she did not make any effort to an- swer the questions. Hollaway admitted at trial III. that she was put out by the interview because Hollaway challenges the finding that age she thought the questions were not germane to was not a factor in the Corps’s selection prothe position and that she probably had given cess. We review findings of fact for clear ershort answers. ror. Couch v. Cro-Marine Transp., Inc., 44 F.3d 319, 327 (5th Cir. 1995). Hollaway also The panel combined its pre-interview eval- challenges some of the legal analysis in the disuations with its impressions from the inter- trict court’s dicta. We review conclusions of views and determined that Heinly and Van law de novo. Randel v. United States Dep’t of Hook were tied for the top ranking; Stokes Navy, 157 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir. 1998). The ranked third and Hollaway fourth. The panel district court’s factual findings are sufficient to selected Heinly. support its disposition, so we do not reach its legal analysis of the alternate, hypothetical