Opinion ID: 621469
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gambill’s Qualifications

Text: Taking into consideration evidence of Duke’s nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Gambill, Gambill has not shown she was more qualified than Ezell. In choosing between Gambill and Ezell to fill the EH&S Counsel Midwest role, Duke considered certain selection criteria: (1) performance evaluations, (2) collaborative ability, (3) ability to communicate with clients and build team consensus, and (4) subject matter expertise. Each of these factors shows that Ezell was more qualified than Gambill, demonstrating Duke’s lack of discriminatory intent. First, Ezell’s performance evaluations were consistently superior to Gambill’s. Gambill argues that her 2005 review should be ignored because it omitted input from a client, Debra Nispel. However, Nispel’s input was omitted for a nondiscriminatory reason: she was unavailable during the review period. Further, even in years where Duke included Nispel’s evaluation, Ezell’s performance reviews were still superior. Gambill also argues that the performance reviews are contradicted by Manly’s testimony that Ezell was “insubordinate,” but, Manly testified that he “valued and appreciated” Ezell’s strong client advocacy. Moreover, Manly testified that Ezell capably fulfilled her NSR role, but also could “shine” on smaller projects. Accordingly, the performance reviews support Duke’s finding that Ezell was more qualified. Second, Stempien and Manly observed that Ezell’s collaborative ability exceeded Gambill’s. They observed Ezell’s successful management of a large litigation and heard consistent peer reports that Ezell was easy to work with and helpful. In contrast, attorneys complained that Gambill was unwilling to collaborate, that she failed to act as a liaison with state environmental regulators, and - 11 - No. 10-3333 Gambill v. Duke Energy Corp. that she did not adequately share her substantive expertise. Stempien testified that, “[a] number of my colleagues had expressed dissatisfaction with [Gambill’s] performance,” and found her to be “unhelpful.” Gambill offers no rebuttal evidence to this point. Third, Ezell’s ability to communicate with clients and build team consensus surpassed Gambill’s. Ezell demonstrated strength in communication and issue leadership, and clients and peers uniformly praised Ezell’s responsiveness and willingness to take responsibility. In fact, the very same “difficult” client that Gambill complains gave her a bad review, Bernard Huff, testified that Ezell did not have any weaknesses. In contrast, Stempien testified that the same client was so frustrated with Gambill’s unresponsiveness that the client had to be directed to another attorney in the department. Duke employees testified that Gambill was often unavailable, returned calls slowly, and failed to provide issue leadership to reach a decision; her peers interpreted the latter as Gambill’s willingness to pass the decision to others to avoid responsibility. In response, Gambill mischaracterizes the testimony of two witnesses, Janson and Pearl, as suggesting that Ezell was unresponsive. Instead, Janson testified that the only time Ezell was untimely in her responses was during the NSR trial, which Janson testified was “a big case for the company.” Pearl testified that, if anything, Ezell was over-responsive – Pearl did not like “talking to attorneys at 8:00 at night.” Fourth, Duke concedes that Gambill had more experience in the field of environmental law; however, this does not detract from Ezell’s “excellent” knowledge of the subject matter. Ezell had worked at an environmental boutique firm and managed the “single biggest litigation facing the company,” which involved complex air pollution regulations – a substantive area that accounted for - 12 - No. 10-3333 Gambill v. Duke Energy Corp. 80% of the environmental issues facing Duke. In addition, Ezell was “more familiar with the facts and witnesses [of the NSR case] than anyone else.” Although Gambill had more experience than Ezell, the record demonstrates that the relative subject matter expertise is closer than what Gambill argues. Given these factors, a jury could only conclude that Newton recommended that Ezell be the new EH&S Counsel based on demonstrable superiority when assessed against the selection criteria, with no regard for age. Newton’s documentation of this recommendation on a selection decision worksheet that reflected the candidate’s comparative strengths, combined with Manly’s adoption of Newton’s recommendation, reflects a deliberate process based on legitimate, rather than impermissible, criteria. Gambill has failed to show the decision “(1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defendant's challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.” See Wexler, 317 F.3d at 576. Gambill’s analogy to the situation in an unpublished district court opinion does not require a different conclusion. Citing Erpenbeck v. Premier Golf Mgmt., No. C-1-05-419, 2006 WL 3390996, at  (S.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2006), Gambill requests that the court disregard Duke’s evaluations because Gambill cannot be required to prove “what was in the employer’s mind.” Id. Erpenbeck is distinguishable because it involved an employer who claimed he did not know the age of an employee, despite the employer’s access to records showing the employee’s birthday. Id. at  2. Given the factual nature of that evidentiary dispute, the court sent the case to a jury for a - 13 - No. 10-3333 Gambill v. Duke Energy Corp. credibility determination. Id. Here, as detailed above, Duke has provided ample evidence that supports its decision, and there is no genuine factual dispute.