Opinion ID: 167100
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Objectivity of evaluations

Text: 46 Pippin also argues he has presented evidence of pretext because his evaluations were too subjective. He complains, in particular, that the process included input from other supervisors and the possibility of changes being imposed by higher-level managers. 47 Our cases have regularly affirmed grants of summary judgment for employers who based RIF terminations on employee rankings. E.g., Rea, 29 F.3d at 1456; Fallis, 944 F.2d at 744. The subjective nature of the evaluations may be a factor to consider in pretext but it ordinarily is not by itself sufficient to establish pretext. Furr, 82 F.3d at 987 (the use of subjective criteria does not suffice to prove intentional age discrimination.); see also Simms, 165 F.3d at 1328 (Evidence of pretext may include ... the use of subjective criteria.); Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1046 (10th Cir.1981) (noting that although subjective criteria are not wrongful per se, it does provide[] an opportunity for unlawful discrimination). 48 Nonetheless, Pippin cites language from one of our subsequent non-RIF ADEA cases where we said [a]bsent evidence that [the employer's] system of ranking and evaluation relies on objective criteria, we hold that [the employee] has satisfied his burden to demonstrate pretext ... for the purposes of avoiding summary judgment. Garrett, 305 F.3d at 1218. Although this language is indeed broad, our holding in Garrett was much more narrow. There, the plaintiff's rankings had taken an abrupt turn for the worse almost immediately after that plaintiff began organizing a pro-diversity committee at the work place. Moreover, the defendant did not contest, consistent with expert testimony on the subject, that the rankings were wholly subjective. Id. at 1214, 1218. Indeed, elsewhere in Garrett we clarified that  [w]hen viewed in the aggregate, his proffered evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine doubt about Defendant's motivation. Id. at 1220 (emphasis added, quotation omitted). 49 Unlike in Garrett, here we do not consider Burlington's evaluation process wholly subjective. The evaluations, while covering such subjective considerations as team building, personal leadership, and personal accountability, also required the employee's immediate supervisor to enumerate specific results achieved with supporting examples. Burlington also used a particular evaluation form that included multiple mandatory areas for evaluation, and Pippin's evaluations showed a consistent pattern of soft skill issues over more than ten years. Thus, neither the contents of, nor Burlington's reliance on, these evaluations support an inference that Burlington's proffered reasons for terminating Pippin were pretextual.