Opinion ID: 170045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Interview Panel Have Discretion?

Text: In response, the defendants argue that the scoring during the interview stage of the process was discretionary. They maintain that the interview panel members had discretion in scoring the applicants, and that this discretion, as a matter of law, precludes a finding that an applicant has a property interest in promotion. See Goodisman, 724 F.2d at 820 (holding that no property interest is created when hiring procedures do not impose “significant limitation on the discretion of the decision maker”). One Sheriff’s Department employee provided evidence that the oral interviews were scored by comparing responses to the “best” answers for selected questions. From this, the district court inferred that scoring was subjective rather -7- than objective, and therefore discretionary, because comparison to the “best” answer rather than the “correct” answer made evaluation subjective. This is not the only possible inference. A comparison of the applicant’s answer to the “best” answer is common in grading, and need not carry any implication of subjectivity. If an applicant on a driving test is asked how much following distance to allow on the highway, it would not be subjective to give the highest score to the applicant who gives the answer closest to one car length per every ten miles per hour. The district court’s assumption that scoring based on “best” or “worst” is more subjective than scoring based on “right” or “wrong” may sometimes be true, but not always. Moreover, Ms. Jones filed a motion to compel discovery regarding the content of the interviewing process, including the questions and the model answers. This evidence presumably would resolve whether the questions were more subjective or objective in nature. After first granting that motion, the court stayed discovery pending resolution of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and then granted summary judgment on the ground that there was no disputed issue of material fact bearing on the issue. This, we think, was premature. While a ruling on qualified immunity “should be made early in the proceedings,” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, discovery as to evidence central to the qualified immunity analysis must be allowed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (summary judgment should only be entered when the evidence -8- shows “no genuine issue as to any material fact”). On the record before the district court, there was doubt as to whether the scoring protocol employed by the interview panel was subjective or objective. The district court should not have granted summary judgment while that factual dispute was still unresolved. C. The Order Dismissing Claims Against Sheriff Hernandez For the same reason, the court’s dismissal of Ms. Jones’ claims against Sheriff Hernandez was erroneous. Ms. Jones has alleged and may be able to prove that she had a property interest in promotion, based on a nondiscretionary mode of selection. Ms. Jones’ claims against Sheriff Hernandez cannot be resolved in his favor as a matter of law, but require factual development, along with the claims against the other defendants.