Opinion ID: 4540613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Position- Engineer II-FACE Team

Text: MGM does not argue that Gibson failed to meet the prima facie case, and, instead, it offers a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for hiring Weldon over Gibson for the second time: -14- No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC Weldon was again more qualified than Gibson. Gibson fails to offer sufficient evidence to rebut this reason.5 Gibson cannot show that the proffered reason “has no basis in fact.” Grace, 521 F.3d at 670. On the contrary, she herself testified that she believed that Weldon was more qualified for the Engineer II position. Furthermore, she cannot show that the proffered reason “did not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct[] or [] was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.” Grace, 521 F.3d at 670. The position description mentions qualifications or background knowledge that Weldon had that Gibson did not. Specifically, the position description called for hotel experience, knowledge of basic guest room equipment, and experience with the tv, internet, and phone systems. Weldon had that experience and background while Gibson did not, as Gibson admitted. Moreover, the contemporaneous notes of the interviews show that Valentine and Lewis considered just that during the interview process, with Lewis specifically commenting on Gibson’s lack of hotel experience and experience with the tv, internet, and phone systems. Valentine also noted that Gibson said she did not have hotel experience during the interview. On the other hand, Valentine and Lewis both noted during their interview with Weldon that he had hotel experience. Finally, Gibson has failed to persuade us that this lack of hotel experience was an insufficient reason to warrant hiring Weldon over Gibson. As we did in McDaniels, we find that Gibson “is unable to show that a reasonable jury could find that [MGM’s] articulated non-discriminatory motive was pretext for gender discrimination under any of the three approaches,” McDaniels, 755 F. App’x at 472, and we affirm 5 Because the analyses under ELCRA and Title VII are almost identical, Ondricko, 689 F.3d at 652, we treat them like singular claims. -15- No. 19-1467, Gibson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC the district court’s grant of summary judgment to MGM on Gibson’s claims related to the Engineer II position.