Opinion ID: 150007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard for Pretext Claims Based on Superior Qualifications

Text: Moss next argues that the district court erred by applying a heightened standard in comparing his qualifications to Lim'sa standard that has been rejected by the Supreme Court. In its summary judgment order, the district court stated that: A court can infer pretext if it determines that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified (as opposed to merely better or as qualified) than the employee[] who [was] selected. Office of Cmty. Serv., 47 F.3d at 1444. To demonstrate that the employee who was selected is clearly better qualified than the defendant, the plaintiff must show that disparities in curricula vitae are so apparent as to jump off the page and slap [the fact finder] in the face. Odom v. Frank, 3 F.3d 839, 847 (5th Cir.1993). The standard articulated in the first sentence, clearly better qualified, is good law. Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group, Inc., 482 F.3d 408, 412 (5th Cir.2007). In Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., however, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Circuit erred in articulating the standard for determining whether the asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for [the employer's] hiring decisions were pretextual when it stated that [p]retext can be established through comparing qualifications only when the disparity in qualifications is so apparent as virtually to jump off the page and slap you in the face. 546 U.S. 454, 456-57, 126 S.Ct. 1195, 163 L.Ed.2d 1053 (2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The district court erred by reciting the slap you in the face standard. Although the district court stated the incorrect standard, however, its careful and fact-specific analysis reflects that it actually applied the proper standard. Regardless, as discussed above, summary judgment was appropriate under the correct clearly better qualified standard. See Holtzclaw v. DSC Comm'n. Corp., 255 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir.2001) (a panel may affirm summary judgment on any ground supported by the record, even if it is different from that relied on by the district court.).