Opinion ID: 150593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Martin Plaintiffs

Text: Several of the Martin plaintiffs stated that they heard Rubin say during a meeting that he would “promote according to the diversity of the city” and take steps to maintain the racial balance of the AFRD, and that the racial makeup of the AFRD should mirror the racial makeup of the surrounding community. One 21 plaintiff once saw Rubin with a document showing the racial demographics of Captains and Battalion Chiefs, and another plaintiff stated that, during a meeting, Rubin presented a chart showing how he expected to hire a certain percentage of black, white, and female employees. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, see Townsend, 601 F.3d at 1157, a jury could reasonably conclude that Rubin’s appointments to Battalion and Section Chief positions were based on race. As noted above, it is clearly established that an employer may not base promotion decisions on race. See Williams, 341 F.3d at 1272. On appeal, Rubin argues that his 2004 and 2006 Battalion and Section Chief appointments were based on a factor other than race, because he “implemented a comprehensive multi-phase examination based appointment process.” However, even assuming that the 2004 and 2006 in-basket test, oral interview, and resume review were conducted in a race-neutral manner, Rubin was not bound by the results of this process and retained ultimate authority to determine who to promote to Battalion and Section Chief. Rubin failed to explain why he exercised his discretion in such a manner as to deny appointments to the individual plaintiffs in this case. Thus, he has offered no evidence that his appointments were motivated by lawful considerations. See Foy, 94 F.3d at 1535; Stanley, 219 F.3d at 1296. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Rubin’s motions for summary judgment on 22 qualified immunity grounds in both Ham and Martin. AFFIRMED. 23