Opinion ID: 1016004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Williams, McKelvy, Cooks, Lacy

Text: Plaintiffs Williams, McKelvy, Cooks, and Lacy failed to establish that they were qualified for the positions they sought, the third element of a prima facie claim of discrimination. Specifically, they failed to introduce evidence that, but for the allegedly discriminatory reviews given by their supervisors or the review panel, they would have met all of the KSAs required for the -14- promotions they sought. The NTAC manager testified that each of these plaintiffs scored so low on an examination for at least one necessary KSA that he could not have passed the KSA even had he received the highest supervisor or panel review possible. Because the USPS uses the KSAs to determine whether candidates are qualified for particular positions, the fact that the plaintiffs would not have passed the necessary KSAs, even in the absence of any discriminatory reviews, establishes that they were not qualified for the positions for which they applied. Attempting to prove that the KSA examination procedure itself was a pretext for discrimination, the plaintiffs suggest that white employees might have had access to testing materials prior to taking the exams. They also attempt to undermine the credibility of NTAC manager Mahoney's testimony that the plaintiffs' exam scores were so low that they could not have passed the necessary KSAs by asserting that the scoring process was shrouded in secrecy. These arguments are, however, mere speculation and do not create a triable question of fact. See Ennis v. Nat'l Ass'n of Bus. and Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55, 62 (4th Cir. 1995) (Mere unsupported speculation . . . is not enough to defeat a summary judgment motion).