Opinion ID: 2781834
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I am the President and CEO of CDM Media USA, Inc.

Text: 2. CDM Media provides business to business technology marketing services. In particular, it provides global marketing assistance to information technology executives from Fortune 1000 companies by way of (1) web products, (2) interactive media campaigns, (3) workshops and (4) a variety of invitation-only custom technology marketing events. All of these products are aimed at an audience of C-Level corporate executives (for example CEOs, CIOs and CFOs) with information technology responsibility for their companies. 3. I decided not to hire Plaintiff Christie Adams in February of 2009. 4. The inside sales person job that Ms. Adams applied for involves cold calling C-Level executives of Fortune 1,000 companies responsible for information technology, can be tedious and requires a team player. 5. It was my belief that [Adams] was not qualified for the job because:
years;
(previous 10-15 years) sales experience was in publishing and/or selling phone book advertising which incorporated outside sales and face to face communication;
sales experience that involved selling to C-Level corporate executives of Fortune 1,000 companies; and
tedious work.[4] 6. The company did not hire any younger applicants with equal or lower qualifications for the position. 7. I was not involved in creating, reviewing or approving any advertising or posting for the position for which [Adams] applied, nor was I aware of the content of such advertising or posting, and I did not consider any criteria stated in any advertising or posting in making my decision not to hire [Adams]. 4 Adams disputed making such a statement. - 10 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (Emphases added). Citing to Willis’ Declaration, CDM argued the record lacked substantial evidence of Adams’ qualification for the position. CDM made four arguments to establish that Adams was not qualified: (1) Adams had no sales experience in the five years prior to applying for the CDM position; (2) “very little of what Adams did more than five years before she applied for the inside sales job at CDM Media had anything to do with that job, because she spent much of her time before her more than five year hiatus as an outside sales person”; (3) Adams’ “prior sales experience did not involve selling to C-level executives of Fortune 1,000 companies”; and (4) “the work at CDM Media can be tedious” and Adams had expressed a dislike of tedious work. CDM maintained that it was justified in considering recent sales experience as an important job qualification because Adams had “no relevant work experience” “that [was] sufficient ground to hold that she was not qualified for the sales position.” CDM argued further that Adams failed to establish that CDM’s reasons for not hiring her were a “pretext” for discrimination. CDM contended that to establish pretext, Adams must show that CDM’s explanation was “unworthy of belief,” “a dishonest explanation,” or “deceit used to cover one’s tracks.” CDM claimed that “Willis’ honest belief in the reasons he had for deciding that Adams was not qualified prevents Adams from - 11 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER showing pretext.” CDM also claimed that “[n]o one who was hired was similarly unqualified.” Even if CDM misjudged Adams’ qualifications, CDM contended that it had discretion in making hiring decisions and “[i]n order to overcome this discretion, Adams would have to show that she was ‘clearly superior’ or ‘significantly’ or ‘markedly’ better than chosen candidates.” CDM argued that Adams made no such claims. On June 27, 2012, Adams filed a memorandum in opposition to the MSJ. Adams attached a declaration to her submission, stating “I had provided Bera with sufficient information of my qualifications before and during the phone interview to set up an in-person interview, and at the in-person interview.” Adams noted, “CDM did not state that job applicants needed to be currently employed in sales.” Adams represented that none of the “online classified ads placed by Defendant for employees that I saw” mentioned that the position required sales experience selling to C-Level corporate executives of Fortune 1,000 companies. Likewise, Adams declared this “area of expertise” was not “mentioned to me during my telephone interview by Bera, nor during my in-person interview with Bera.” Adams also declared that, contrary to Willis’ statement, her sales experience in the ten to fifteen years prior to the interview was not limited to outside, face-to-face sales of printed phone book advertising, but also included - 12 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER “online, selling websites and links for customers,” as well as “print and online advertising full-time in an inside sales position over the phone from September of 1998 to about May of 2000, when our management promoted me into outside sales.” Adams stated that she possessed twenty-five years of “computer experience” at the time of the interview. Adams additionally set forth in her declaration that she “previously had dealt with many high-level executives dating back to my first full-time job in 1974.” Adams stated, “[e]ven though I was well qualified for the position, was a top sales associate when employed by the yellow pages, had won numerous sales awards there, and had traveled all over the world, I feel that CDM did not hire me because I was not ‘young’ enough for CDM Media.” In Adams’ memorandum in opposition, she argued first that it was “obviously not true” that she was unqualified for the job as she “was highly qualified for the job due to her experience in sales.” Adams maintained that “the job did not require sales experience,” and thus the argument that Adams did not have the required sales experience is “pure pretext to cover age discrimination.” Adams also denied stating that she did not like tedious work. On June 29, 2012, CDM filed a reply. CDM contended that Willis’ Declaration supported the fact that CDM had - 13 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER “presented evidence that it did not hire younger applicants than Adams who had qualifications equal to or lower than hers.” CDM maintained that Adams presented no admissible evidence “that any person CDM Media hired is younger and/or equally or less qualified than Adams.” On July 5, 2012, a hearing was held on the MSJ. The court explained that “the question in the Court’s mind boiled down to the third prong of the McDonnell Douglas test.” The court’s view was that Adams had not raised a genuine issue of material fact with regard to pretext. Adams responded that she did not need to prove pretext because CDM had not satisfied its burden of showing that it had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons not to hire Adams. CDM replied that the five-year gap in Adams’ work experience was a sufficient nondiscriminatory reason not to hire Adams. Adams’ counsel countered that the five-year gap was irrelevant because Adams “was a good, an excellent, a terrific, a fantastic salesperson. . . .” Counsel noted, “[y]ou know, this is not rocket science. You get on the phone. You have a very good personality. You know what the script is to talk to people about, which is provided by the company. So how does that have any relationship to a decision not to hire her?” Adams maintained that CDM’s contention that she said she did not like “tedious” work was not only false but was also - 14 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER “created to substantiate their pretext for not hiring her.” Adams argued that although Willis stated the job required a “team player,” “he didn’t say anything about why [Adams was] not a team player.” In response to the court’s specific inquiry into what Adams’ arguments were concerning pretext, Adams argued the following: (1) the contentions that she did not have sales experience for five years or experience calling C-level executives were both pretext for discrimination because the posted job advertisements did not state that sales experience or experience in calling executives was required; (2) the “tedious work” comment was clearly a material issue of fact as anyone who heard such a comment would not hire a person for the job, and Willis based his decision on that comment; and (3) no evidence was presented that Adams was not a team player. Adams concluded that material issues of fact existed and that summary judgment was inappropriate. The circuit court orally ruled that, under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), Adams had made a prima facie case of discrimination: “This Court, under the pertinent McDonnell Douglas test . . . concludes that the plaintiff did meet their initial burden of establishing the prima facie showing.” Thus, the burden shifted to the employer, and “[t]he employer, based on the paper submitted to the Court, - 15 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER did establish legitimate nondiscriminatory reason [sic] for not hiring the plaintiff.” The circuit court concluded that Adams “did not raise triable issues of material fact as to the employer’s reason that the non-hiring was pretextual.” Concerning the “tedious work” comment, the circuit court ruled “there may be a material – there may be a disputed fact there. But in this Court[’s] view, that alone is not enough to meet plaintiff’s burden, once we hit the third prong of the McDonnell Douglas test.” Concerning Adams’ argument that the persons hired instead of Adams “had no sales experience, or sales experience that was less than that of the plaintiff,” the circuit court ruled “all that’s submitted in support of that assertion is her own declaration.” The circuit court viewed that evidence as “not admissible.” Accordingly, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of CDM. The circuit court did not make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. The July 24, 2012 Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Filed February 21, 2012, affirmed the circuit court’s oral ruling. [T]he [circuit court] finds and orders as follows: That [Adams] has met her burden of showing a prima facie case of age discrimination. That [CDM] has met its burden to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring [Adams]. That the burden therefore shifted to [Adams] to demonstrate [CDM’s] reasons were perpetual. That [Adams] failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [CDM’s] reasons were pretextual. That - 16 - FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER [CDM’s MSJ] should therefore be granted and [Adams’] Complaint dismissed. Also on July 24, 2012, the circuit court entered its final judgment in favor of CDM. On August 23, 2012, Adams filed a timely notice of appeal to the ICA.