Court Opinion

ID: 9367902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 15:00:55.617286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.478075
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1288    Document: 41     Page: 1    Filed: 02/02/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   JULIA C. LEGGETT,
                        Petitioner

                             v.

    OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE
                    RIGHTS,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2022-1288
                  ______________________

     Petition for review of a decision of the Board of Direc-
 tors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights in No.
 20-LC-18 (CV).
                    ______________________

                 Decided: February 2, 2023
                  ______________________

    JENNIE CATHRYNE BLAINE WATSON, Alan Lescht and
 Associates, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

     JOHN D. UELMEN, Office of General Counsel, Office of
 Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, argued
 for respondent.
                 ______________________

    Before PROST, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1288    Document: 41      Page: 2    Filed: 02/02/2023

 2                                           LEGGETT   v. OCWR

 PER CURIAM.
      Ms. Julia Leggett filed a claim with the Office of Con-
 gressional Workplace Rights against her employing office,
 the Library of Congress, alleging that it unlawfully dis-
 criminated against her on the bases of her race, color, and
 national origin when she was not selected for the position
 of Supervisory Librarian (Acquisitions and Collections). An
 OCWR Merits Hearing Officer granted summary judgment
 for the Library on Ms. Leggett’s claim. The OCWR’s Board
 of Directors affirmed summary judgment, determining
 that Ms. Leggett failed to adduce sufficient evidence for a
 factfinder to conclude that the Library’s asserted non-dis-
 criminatory reasons for hiring a white selectee were a pre-
 text for unlawful discrimination. Ms. Leggett now appeals
 the Board’s determination.
     We have jurisdiction under 2 U.S.C. § 1407(a)(1) and
 review the Board’s decision de novo. 1
     Ms. Leggett’s appeal relies on the theory that she was
 significantly more qualified than the selectee, such that the
 Library’s decision to nevertheless hire the selectee is

       1     OCWR argues that we review the Board’s fac-
 tual findings for substantial evidence. See Respondent’s Br.
 at 13–15. Summary judgment, however, has no factual
 findings and is reviewed de novo. See Cienega Gardens v.
 United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Sum-
 mary judgment, however, is, of course, in all respects re-
 viewed de novo.”); see also M & J Coal Co. v. United States,
 47 F.3d 1148, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[S]ummary judgment
 is a question of law subject to complete and independent
 review by this court.” (quotation marks and citation omit-
 ted)).
Case: 22-1288        Document: 41   Page: 3   Filed: 02/02/2023

 LEGGETT   v. OCWR                                           3

 evidence of discrimination sufficient to survive summary
 judgment.
     Courts have held that, to survive summary judgment,
 a plaintiff must show that she was “significantly better
 qualified for the job.” Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d
 1284, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc); see also Martinez v.
 Tex. Workforce Comm’n-C.R. Div., 775 F.3d 685, 687 (5th
 Cir. 2014) (holding that qualifications evidence may estab-
 lish pretext where plaintiff was “clearly better qualified
 such that the qualifications are so widely disparate that no
 reasonable employer would have made the same decision”
 (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Millbrook v. IBP,
 Inc., 280 F.3d 1169, 1179–80 (7th Cir. 2002) (adopting the
 Fifth Circuit’s “clearly better qualified” standard and ex-
 plaining that it is the same standard as the Second, Tenth,
 Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star
 Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003)
 (holding that qualifications evidence may establish pretext
 where the plaintiff’s qualifications are “clearly superior” to
 those of the selectee). In close cases, however, a reasonable
 factfinder “would usually assume that the employer is
 more capable of assessing the significance of small differ-
 ences in the qualifications of the candidates, or that the
 employer simply made a judgment call.” Aka, 156 F.3d at
 1294.
     To be sure, Ms. Leggett was qualified for this position.
 Ms. Leggett holds a master’s degree in Library and Infor-
 mation Sciences. At the time of the selection, she had
 worked at the Library for close to 30 years, 15 of which
 were as a Senior Acquisition and Collections Librarian.
 During this period, she performed all aspects of acquisi-
 tions work, from creating broader acquisition strategies to
 selecting sources and negotiating agreements with ven-
 dors. She thus had extensive experience in acquisitions.
    A reasonable factfinder—when considering the evi-
 dence in the light most favorable to Ms. Leggett—could
Case: 22-1288    Document: 41       Page: 4   Filed: 02/02/2023

 4                                            LEGGETT   v. OCWR

 conclude that this was a close case but not that Ms. Leggett
 was “significantly” or “clearly” more qualified than the se-
 lectee. Like Ms. Leggett, the selectee also had a master’s in
 Library and Information Sciences. The selectee also had
 substantial experience in acquisitions, even if she might
 have had less than Ms. Leggett. And experience in acquisi-
 tions was not the only criterion for the position. The open
 position was for a library section head, a supervisory posi-
 tion. The selectee here had more managerial experience,
 after having already served as an acting supervisor for a
 different library section.
     In short, we agree with OCWR that Ms. Leggett has
 not shown that there is a genuine dispute that the Li-
 brary’s asserted non-discriminatory reasons for passing on
 Ms. Leggett were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. We
 have considered Ms. Leggett’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, we affirm the
 Board’s decision.
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS

 No costs.