Court Opinion

ID: 9517350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:14:11.87208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:55.063987
License: Public Domain

■ TRAXLER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree that Appellant Ham has failed to produce sufficient evidence that the reasons advanced by WSSC for his nonselection for promotion were a pretext for race discrimination. I also agree that Porter and Proctor, unlike Ham, have produced sufficient evidence from which a jury might conclude that WSSC’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting them for promotion were pretextual.
I write in addition to my colleagues, however, because I view the evidence as much closer than they. For example, I cannot conclude from the record before us that the evidence produced thus far establishes that Porter or Proctor were objectively better qualified for the position. I also question the admissibility of some of the evidence presented to us on appeal, and recited at times by the majority, but leave those determinations to the trial judge on remand. In sum, because I do agree that Porter and Procter have established a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasons for their nonselection and that they are entitled to a fair opportunity to demonstrate that WSSC’s assigned reasons were a pretext for race discrimination, I concur in the judgment which affirms in part and reverses in part *477the district court’s grant of summary judgment.