Opinion ID: 2973168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Summary of Plaintiff’s Evidence of Pretext

Text: Based on the foregoing analysis, this Court understands Plaintiff to have produced two pieces of evidence in support of pretext, 1) the old letterhead going to the authenticity of the selection committee recommendation memorandum, and 2) the false assertion in the Civil Service Commission memorandum that no qualified candidates had been found for the position. Neither piece of evidence is dispositive and both are countered by Defendant in the form of deposition 17 No. 04-3465 testimony and affidavits. The old letterhead is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the memorandum’s authenticity. Christie gave a statement under oath that the memorandum is a true and correct copy of what he received on that date. The memorandum is initialed and is consistent with deposition testimony of Vance and the affidavit of Christie. The memorandum was kept in the ordinary course of business. The use of 9-month old letterhead is insufficient to override these indicia of reliability. The incorrect assertion in the Civil Service Commission memorandum is a closer issue. The inconsistency between the statement therein and the undisputed concession that Plaintiff was qualified for the Safety Manager position is some evidence going to Plaintiff’s claim, despite Defendant’s explanation for the statement. In this Court’s opinion, however, this single inconsistency amounts only to a scintilla of evidence when viewed in the context of the evidentiary record as a whole. This evidence is not sufficient such that a “jury may reasonably reject the employer’s explanation.” Manzer, 29 F.3d at 1083. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that Defendant’s true motivation was discriminatory. None of Plaintiff’s evidence points to gender discrimination. Plaintiff has alleged no statements or references by Defendant management or employees which go to gender discrimination or even animus. Plaintiff relies exclusively on the fact that a white male ultimately received the promotion. Yet another white male, Keith Nichols, was affected in the same way as Plaintiff throughout the hiring process. In fact, Keith Nichols was the successful candidate’s direct supervisor prior to the candidate’s promotion. Plaintiff points to the entirety of the circumstances 18 No. 04-3465 surrounding the hiring process, but this Court has held that temporal proximity, standing alone, is “insufficient in and of itself to establish that the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason” was, in fact, pretextual. Skrjanc v. Great Lakes Power Serv. Co., 272 F3d 309, 317 (6th Cir. 2001).