Opinion ID: 3029458
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Promote to POOM

Text: Hare next claims her not being promoted to POOM was the result of her pressing her claim. She argues she was well qualified for the POOM position, as evidenced by her high performance rating and her manager’s recommending her for the position to Burke, and, despite her qualifications, Burke chose not to interview her. As evidence of causation, she points to the temporal proximity of her meeting with Burke (on March 24, 2000) and her not being selected to interview for the POOM position (on May 25, 2000). The Post Office argues that the list of people who Burke ultimately interviewed was generated by an independent committee. This committee did not include Burke or anyone else who knew of Hare’s harassment claim. Accordingly, Burke did not have input into the list of interviewees and could not have excluded Hare out of retaliatory animus. The District Court determined that not selecting Hare for the POOM job was an adverse employment decision, but it found Hare had failed to prove causation in light of the role of the independent committee. Hare disputes this finding and points to evidence that one member of the committee, John Philbin, reported directly to Burke. She 17 speculates Burke told Philbin about her claim, and, as a result, Philbin quashed her candidacy. We agree with the District Court and find no evidence in the record that could lead a jury to reasonably find that Burke told Philbin about Hare’s claim or that the committee otherwise knew about it. In his deposition, Philbin explicitly denied talking to Burke about Hare: Q. Did you say that you never talked to Ed Burke about Jamie Hare at all? A. That’s correct. App. at A325. In addition, Burke testified that he did not know Philbin was on the committee because its members were kept confidential. App. at A296. Hare further claims that Philbin likely knew about Hare’s complaint because he worked in the same building as Burmeister and McCullough. She points to no evidence in the record, however, that indicates that Philbin ever interacted with either of these men or that he discussed Hare’s claim with them. Overall, we find the District Court properly found that Hare did not make out a prima facie case of retaliation based on the Post Office’s not selecting her for the POOM position.