Opinion ID: 3010509
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PAF ratings

Text: Nemetz testified that each applicant's PAF scores played a major role in determining who was the top candidate. Similarly, the district court concluded that the decision to promote Riehle was based in large part upon the PAF scores in each applicant's job profile and that these objective scores were a nondiscriminatory explanation for why Riehle was picked over Bray. Riehle had PAF scores of 1, 1, and 2 for each of her prior evaluations. All three of Bray's most recent scores, on the other hand, were 2s. Nemetz was aware that Riehle's most recent PAF was 1, but he was unable to recall at deposition the two earlier evaluations. App. at 231a. However, the record raises an issue of fact as to the timing of Riehle's most recent rating. Although Riehle's first two evaluations were a year apart (11/16/91 and 11/14/92), her most recent evaluation -- the one that Nemetz recalled -- was only six months after the previous evaluation.6 On the other hand, all of Bray's evaluations were 6 The district court emphasized the fact that Ms. Riehle had received the top performance evaluation for her work with Marriott during the previous two years, receiving a '1' for her PAF rating. Dist. Ct. Op. at 13 (emphasis added). However, when this Court reviewed the record, as we must in reviewing a grant of summary judgment, it became clear that one of the 1s 18 approximately one year apart (9/22/90, 9/18/91, and 9/21/92). At oral argument, Marriott's counsel was asked why Riehle received a semi-annual evaluation in what appeared to be an annual review process when all of her prior evaluations and Bray's evaluations had been annual. He could offer no explanation. A factfinder should determine if Riehle was given an evaluation out of the normal sequence and, if so, why. This record suggests that Riehle officially began as Director of Services on April 10, 1993,7 the same date that she was given an evaluation of 1 for that position. Since Riehle's PAF was updated in June 1993, it is conceivable that the rating of 1 was given at that time to reflect her performance in her new position. However, that is not consistent with Nemetz's testimony. Nemetz was deposed in November of 1994 and testified that Riehle was then due for an evaluation but that she had not yet been evaluated.8 Absent further explanation, a reasonable jury could conclude that Riehle was evaluated out of normal had been awarded during a semi-annual review. At oral argument, we asked counsel to explain why Riehle had been given a semiannual review but he could not. 7 The record does not establish when Bray or Riehle was interviewed. However, Riehle's Associate Profile, as updated on June 15, 1993, states that her position is Director of Services, and her Date in Pos: is 4/10/93. The form also notes her weekly salary and states that the effective date of that rate is 4/10/93. 8 This is consistent with an annual evaluation occurring in November as Riehle's two other evaluations (excluding the April evaluation) also occurred during the month of November. 19 sequence in order to bolster her selection after Bray had been interviewed. See, e.g., Hampton v. Borough of Tinton Falls Police Dep't, 98 F.3d 107, 114 (3d Cir. 1996) (where Board's policy of considering the past three years' evaluations allowed it to consider three evaluations of the White candidate who had received annual evaluations but six evaluations of the Black candidate who was evaluated semiannually, a factfinder must determine whether application of that policy was due to racial bias). The district court noted that Ms. Riehle had received the top performance evaluation for her work with Marriott during the previous two years, receiving a 1 for her PAF rating. Plaintiff, on the other hand, had never received a rating above 2 during the previous three years. Thus, the most objective criteria clearly pointed to Ms. Riehle as the superior candidate. Dist. Ct. Op. at 13-14. However, this record only reveals two scores prior to the time Riehle was interviewed. One was a 1, but the other was a 2.9 Therefore, on half of the two most recent evaluations prior to her promotion, Riehle did not do as well as she could have. On the other hand, there is evidence that Bray's former supervisor, Richard Lesser, never gave anything higher than a 2 so that Bray received the highest 9 Nemetz testified that the profile that was updated in June of 1993 (the one referred to by the district court) was not the one he relied upon in ranking Riehle, and the one that he said he relied upon was not produced at his deposition. App. at 238a. This record does not establish what Riehle's three prior PAF ratings before her promotion were. 20 possible grade for each of the three evaluations in her employment profile. Lesser stated in his affidavit: During my tenure as director of services, I had never given a PAF rating higher than a two to any manager that I was responsible to review. App. at 325a. The district court correctly noted that Lesser did not state that Bray would have received a 1 but for this policy and that Marriott was entitled to rely upon Riehle’s higher score even if Bray's lower score resulted only from Lesser’s individual grading practice. See Dist. Ct. Op. at 13-14 n.13. However, that does not answer whether Nemetz's failure to recognize that Bray had received the highest grade available was the result of a biased belief that she was not qualified rather than an objective evaluation of the PAF scores of both candidates. The district court also noted that Bray produced no evidence that anyone involved in the promotion knew that Lesser never awarded 1s. Dist. Ct. Op. at 13-14 n.13. Furthermore, Nemetz disputed whether Lesser ever gave a 1 and testified that he thought he recalled Lesser telling him that he had given a 1 to an employee on an evaluation. Dist. Ct. Op. at 13-14 n.13. Although there is a dispute about whether Lesser ever gave a 1, there is no dispute that he thought Bray should have been promoted. Lesser testified that he told Joosten that Bray was qualified for the promotion: In my opinion, which I let known to Mr. Jooston and which Mr. Jooston was aware of, Beryl was more than qualified to take over my position as director of services 21 at the Park Ridge Marriott. To this day, I cannot understand why she was not offered the position. App. at 325a-26a. We realize, of course, that Lesser never saw Riehle's application and may have thought her better qualified than Bray had he done so. However, that is not the point. There are enough disputed facts on this record concerning Bray’s qualifications, the accuracy of Riehle's PAF scores, and Nemetz's view of Bray's ability to allow Bray to survive summary judgment.