Ahmed v. Napolitano, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Ahmed v. Napolitano, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/31

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1054

TAHAR AHMED,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

J EH CHARLES J OHNSON, * SECRETARY,UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURI TY

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Sel ya, and Li pez,Ci r cui t J udges.

Ozel l Hudson J r . f or appel l ant .J enni f er A. Seraf yn, Assi st ant U. S. At t or ney, wi t h whomCar men

M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

May 21, 2014

*Pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 43( c) ( 2) , J ehChar l es J ohnson has been subst i t ut ed f or J anet Napol i t ano asSecretary of t he Depart ment of Homel and Secur i t y.


2/31

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant Tahar Ahmed, a Musl i m

and nat i ve of Al ger i a, br ought t hi s empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on

act i on cl ai mi ng t hat he was passed over f or t he posi t i on of

Depor t at i on Of f i cer i n t he U. S. Depar t ment of Homel and Secur i t y on

account of hi s r el i gi on, r ace, and nat i onal or i gi n. The di st r i ct

cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment f or appel l ee, t he Secretary of t he

Depar t ment ( " t he Depar t ment " ) , f i ndi ng t hat Ahmed f ai l ed t o rebut

t he Depar t ment ' s l egi t i mat e non- di scr i mi nat or y r eason f or choosi ng

ot her appl i cant s and t hus di d not r ai se a f act ual i ssue of

i mpermi ss i bl e ani mus.

Based on a car ef ul r evi ew of t he recor d, we concl ude that

Ahmed pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence f or a j ur y t o f i nd t hat he was

a vi ct i m of di scri mi nat i on. We t her ef or e vacat e t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s j udgment and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.

I.

A. Factual Background

The event s under l yi ng t hi s case ar e l ar gel y undi sput ed.

To t he ext ent t hat t he par t i es di sagree about what occur r ed, we

adher e t o t he pl ai nt i f f ' s ver si on i n keepi ng wi t h our r ol e i n

r evi ewi ng a gr ant of summary j udgment . See J ohnson v. Uni v. of

P. R. , 714 F. 3d 48, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . We sket ch her e onl y t he

backgr ound l eadi ng up t o t he cl ai mof di scr i mi nat i on, r eser vi ng f or

our l at er di scussi on a mor e det ai l ed r ecount i ng of t he f act s

per t i nent t o our deci si on.

-2-


3/31

Appel l ant Ahmed has wor ked as an I mmi grat i on Enf or cement

Agent f or U. S. I mmi gr at i on and Cust oms Enf or cement ( " I CE") si nce

2003, and has been assi gned t hr oughout t hat per i od t o t he Cr i mi nal

Al i en Pr ogr am ( "CAP") i n t he Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce. Empl oyees who

wor k i n t he CAP, one of sever al uni t s wi t hi n I CE' s Det ent i on and

Removal Oper at i ons, i nvest i gat e t he al i enage and depor t abi l i t y of

i ndi vi dual s det ect ed t hr ough t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce system. Fromt he

perspect i ve of co- worker s and supervi sor s, Ahmed has been an

exempl ary empl oyee. One super i or st at ed t hat he "al ways per f ormed

at an out st andi ng l evel , " and anot her descr i bed hi m as an

"[ e] xcel l ent wor ker " wi t h "awesome l eader shi p, and gr eat wor k

et hi cs . "

I n t he summer of 2009, I CE post ed a vacancy announcement

f or t he posi t i on of Depor t at i on Of f i cer , whi ch st at ed t hat

appl i cat i ons woul d be accept ed f r omJ une 10 t hr ough J ul y 28. That

t i mi ng was qual i f i ed, however , by the f ol l owi ng not i ce, whi ch

appear ed i n t he announcement i n al l capi t al , bol d l et t er s:

Thi s i s a t wo ( 2) mont h open announcementwhi ch wi l l be used t o f i l l bot h cur r ent andf ut ur e vacanci es wi t hi n a var i et y ofor gani zat i onal component s, dut y l ocat i ons andgr ade l evel s. I f needed, t he f i r st cut - of ff or r ecei pt of appl i cat i ons wi l l be J une 24,2009. Addi t i onal cut - of f dat es may be

est abl i shed t hr oughout t he open per i od of t heannouncement . Onl y t hose appl i cat i onsr ecei ved pr i or t o t he cut - of f dat es wi l l beconsi der ed. Appl i cant s ar e encour aged t oappl y ear l y i n or der t o maxi mi ze thei roppor t uni t y f or consi der at i on.

-3-


4/31

The announcement st at ed t hat t he maj or dut i es of t he Depor t at i on

Of f i cer posi t i on i ncl uded l egal r esear ch, assi st i ng gover nment

at t or neys i n cour t , and wor ki ng wi t h bot h cr i mi nal and non- cr i mi nal

al i ens at var i ous st ages of t hei r depor t at i on or excl usi on

pr oceedi ngs. The speci f i ed qual i f i cat i ons i ncl uded exper i ence i n

i mmi gr at i on i nvest i gat i ons, 1 and appl i cant s woul d be rated based on

t hei r r esponses t o a quest i onnai r e aski ng t hi r t y- ei ght quest i ons

about t hei r j ob- r el at ed knowl edge, ski l l s, and abi l i t i es.

On J ul y 13, 2009, t he Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce r equest ed t he

names of qual i f i ed appl i cant s f or each of t he gr ade l evel s cover ed

by t he announcement . The I CE Of f i ce of Human Capi t al sent t he

Fi el d Of f i ce l i st s of cer t i f i ed appl i cant s f or t he Gr ade 9 and 11

l evel s, each of whi ch cont ai ned t he names of sevent een candi dates,

al ong wi t h t hei r appl i cat i on mat er i al s. At t hat poi nt , Ahmed was

not yet a candi dat e f or t he posi t i on, as he di d not appl y unt i l

J ul y 28 - - t he f i nal deadl i ne f or submi t t i ng an appl i cat i on.

On J ul y 27 - - t he day bef or e Ahmed appl i ed - - Assi st ant

Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or J ohn Lawl er , t he r ecommendi ng of f i ci al f or

t he Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i on, f or war ded t o hi s super i or t he

names of t hr ee i ndi vi dual s f r omt he Gr ade 11 r ef er r al l i st : Ant hony

Ci ul l a, Ri char d Leni han, and Dani el Shepher d. Al l t hr ee ar e whi t e

1 The posi t i on was open t o appl i cant s wi t h var yi ng l evel s ofexper i ence, and t he sal ar y and j ob gr ade of t he successf ulappl i cant woul d depend on hi s or her pr i or exper i ence andqual i f i cat i ons. Ahmed qual i f i ed at bot h t he Gr ade 9 and Gr ade 11l evel s, and was seeki ng a Gr ade 11 posi t i on.

-4-


5/31

mal es whose pr i mary r ecent exper i ence i n I CE was i n t he Tr avel

Uni t , and al l of whom had been wi t hi n Lawl er ' s chai n of command.

I n an af f i davi t , Lawl er st at ed t hat he "r ecommended each appl i cant

based upon t hei r r esume, work hi st ory and educat i onal backgr ound, "

as wel l as "on what I per sonal l y wi t nessed dai l y as t hey per f or med

t hei r dut i es" i n t he Bur l i ngt on and Bost on I CE of f i ces. 2 Lawl er ' s

super i or , Deput y Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or J ames Mar t i n, agr eed wi t h

t he recommendat i ons and f orwarded t he t hr ee names t o t he sel ect i ng

of f i ci al , Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or Br uce Chadbour ne.

On August 26, t he Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce made a second

r equest f or qual i f i ed appl i cant s f or t he Depor t at i on Of f i cer

posi t i on. Ahmed' s name appeared on t he new Gr ade 9 and Gr ade 11

l i st s of cer t i f i ed appl i cant s, but t her e i s no evi dence t hat any

addi t i onal names wer e r ecommended t o Chadbourne based on t hose

l i s t s . 3 Chadbour ne announced t he pr omot i ons of Ci ul l a, Leni han,

and Shepherd on t hr ee separ ate occasi ons i n Sept ember and ear l y

2 The physi cal l ocat i on of t he Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce moved f r omBost on t o Bur l i ngt on i n about 2007. The Bur l i ngt on of f i ce servesas bot h a l ocal of f i ce and headquar t er s f or t he si x New Engl andst ates: Massachuset t s, Mai ne, New Hampshi r e, Vermont , Rhode I sl and,and Connect i cut . Each st at e al so has a l ocal I CE of f i ce.

3 The new l i st s i ncl uded names t hat al so had appear ed on t heear l i er l i st s, i ncl udi ng Ci ul l a' s, and t hus appar ent l y r ef l ected a

new r anki ng of el i gi bl e candi dat es t hat i ncl uded mor e r ecentappl i cant s. The t r ansmi t t al sheet s f or t he ear l i er l i st s not ed acut of f score of 70 f or bot h t he Gr ade 9 and Gr ade 11 posi t i ons,wi t h sevent een appl i cant s cer t i f i ed as el i gi bl e f or each. Thet r ansmi t t al sheet s f or t he l at er l i st s not ed a cut of f scor e of 93f or t he Gr ade 9 posi t i on ( wi t h t went y cer t i f i ed appl i cant s) and 92f or t he Gr ade 11 posi t i on ( wi t h t went y- t hr ee cer t i f i ed appl i cant s) .

-5-


6/31

Oct ober 2009. 4 I n an af f i davi t , Chadbour ne sai d t he t hr ee men wer e

sel ect ed as " t he best qual i f i ed candi dat es" based on "past

per f or mance, exper i ence, t r ai ni ng, educat i on and wor k pr oduct . " He

par t i cul ar l y pr ai sed t hei r wi l l i ngness "t o accept di f f i cul t dut i es

and assi gnment s t hat others woul d not , such as worki ng i n t he

Tr avel Uni t . " Ahmed was not i f i ed on Oct ober 1 t hat he was not

sel ect ed f or a pr omot i on.

The r ecor d i ncl udes evi dence showi ng a pauci t y of

mi nor i t y empl oyees ser vi ng as Depor t at i on Of f i cer s i n t he Bost on

Fi el d Of f i ce dur i ng Chadbour ne' s t enur e as Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or .

Chadbour ne acknowl edged t hat no Af r i can- Amer i can had ser ved as a

Depor t at i on Of f i cer i n the Bost on headquar t er s dur i ng the year s he

r an t he of f i ce, f r om 2003 t o 2011, al t hough he r ecommended an

Af r i can- Amer i can woman f or a Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i on i n t he

Har t f or d, Connect i cut of f i ce and l at er pr omot ed her t o Assi st ant

Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or t her e. Chadbour ne est i mat ed t hat seven or

ei ght Hi spani cs wor ked as Depor t at i on Of f i cer s or super vi sory

Depor t at i on Of f i cer s dur i ng hi s t enur e. The si x New Engl and

4 A f our t h Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i on al so was f i l l ed att hat t i me, but i t i s not at i ssue her e. The f our t h sel ect ee,Pr i sci l l a War d- Al t ami r ano, was descr i bed as a "humani t ar i ant r ansf er " because she was seeki ng t o rel ocat e t o a posi t i on nearher husband' s j ob.

-6-


7/31

of f i ces had a t ot al of about f i f t y Depor t at i on Of f i cer s dur i ng t hat

per i od. 5

B. Procedural Background

Ahmed f i l ed t he amended compl ai nt under l yi ng t hi s act i on

on August 5, 2011, al l egi ng t hat he was deni ed t he pr omot i on t o

Depor t at i on Of f i cer based on hi s Musl i m r el i gi on, hi s r ace as an

Ar ab, 6 and hi s nat i onal or i gi n as an Al ger i an, i n vi ol at i on of

Ti t l e VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act of 1964. See 42 U. S. C. 2000e-

2( a) . He cl ai med, i nt er al i a, t hat he was "mor e qual i f i ed t han t he

t hr ee i ndi vi dual s sel ect ed, " hi s out st andi ng r ecor d cont r ast ed wi t h

t he "ver y poor wor k habi t s" of one of t he t hr ee successf ul

appl i cant s, and t her e had never been a bl ack Depor t at i on Of f i cer i n

t he Bost on Fi el d Of f i ce. The Depar t ment moved f or summary

j udgment , ar gui ng t hat Ahmed had f ai l ed t o make a pr i ma f aci e

5 We not e some conf usi on i n t he r ecord over t he act ual numberof mi nor i t y Depor t at i on Of f i cer s under Chadbour ne' s super vi si ondur i ng t he per t i nent per i od. A wor kf or ce pr of i l e f or J ul y 2009t hat was prepar ed as par t of t he i nvest i gat i on i nt o Ahmed' scompl ai nt r epor t ed t hat , of 35 posi t i ons, t her e wer e 32 whi t eempl oyees, one Hi spani c, one bl ack, and one Asi an. Chadbour nequest i oned both the t otal number of posi t i ons and t he number ofHi spani cs, st at i ng t hat he knew of f i ve Hi spani c Depor t at i onOf f i cer s "of f t he t op of [ hi s] head, " i ncl udi ng one super vi sor . Hei ndi cat ed t hat a t ot al of about seven t o t en of t he appr oxi mat el yf i f t y peopl e who wer e empl oyed as Depor t at i on Of f i cer s dur i ng hi s

t enur e wer e mi nor i t i es.

6 Ahmed t est i f i ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat he l i st ed hi s r ace as"whi t e, Nor t h Af r i can" i n hi s appl i cat i on f or t he Depor t at i onOf f i cer posi t i on. A super vi sor , Kei t h Foster , t est i f i ed t hat , i nhi s opi ni on, Ahmed i s bl ack. Chadbour ne t est i f i ed t hat heunderst ood Ahmed t o be Af r i can- Amer i can.

-7-


8/31

showi ng of di scr i mi nat i on because he was not an appl i cant at t he

t i me Lawl er made hi s r ecommendat i ons and, even i f he had

est abl i shed a pr i ma f aci e case, t her e was no evi dence t hat t he

sel ect i ons wer e based on di scr i mi nat or y cr i t er i a.

Eval uat i ng the evi dence pur suant t o t he f ami l i ar bur den-

shi f t i ng anal ysi s set f or t h i n McDonnel l Dougl as Cor p. v. Gr een,

411 U. S. 792 ( 1973) , see i nf r a, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat

Ahmed had f ai l ed t o make hi s case wi t h r espect t o Lawl er and Mart i n

because they made thei r r ecommendat i ons bef ore he submi t t ed hi s

appl i cat i on. As to Chadbour ne, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Ahmed

f ai l ed t o r ebut t he Depar t ment ' s asser t i on t hat t he t hr ee sel ect ees

wer e chosen because of t hei r qual i f i cat i ons. Concl udi ng t hat no

j ury consi der i ng t he evi dence coul d f i nd t he def endant ' s

expl anat i on t o be a pr et ext f or di scr i mi nat i on, t he cour t hel d t hat

"a t r i al on t hese i ssues i s not war r ant ed" and, hence, gr ant ed

def endant ' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment .

Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

II.

A. Standard of Review

Our r evi ew of a di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y

j udgment i s de novo. J ohnson, 714 F. 3d at 52. I n conduct i ng our

" f r esh l ook" at t he r ecor d, we vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most

f avorabl e to t he non- movi ng part y, Ahmed, and dr aw al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n hi s f avor . Ger al d v. Uni v. of P. R. , 707 F. 3d 7, 16

-8-


9/31

( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Summar y j udgment i s appr opr i at e onl y i f t her e i s

no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he movi ng par t y i s

ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ;

Ger al d, 707 F. 3d at 16. To det er mi ne whet her a t r i al - wor t hy i ssue

exi st s, we l ook t o al l of t he r ecor d mat er i al s on f i l e, i ncl udi ng

t he pl eadi ngs, deposi t i ons, and af f i davi t s. Fed. R. Ci v. P.

56( c) ( 1) ( A) ; J ohnson, 714 F. 3d at 52. We may nei t her eval uat e t he

cr edi bi l i t y of wi t nesses nor wei gh t he evi dence. See Sheehan v. N.

Am. Mkt g. Corp. , 610 F. 3d 144, 149 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Summary

j udgment i s i nappr opr i at e i f t he evi dence " i s suf f i ci ent l y open-

ended t o per mi t a r at i onal f act f i nder t o r esol ve t he i ssue i n

f avor of ei t her si de. " Ger al d, 707 F. 3d at 16 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

B. Legal Principles

Wher e, as her e, a cl ai mof di scr i mi nat i on under Ti t l e VI I

r est s on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, we appl y t he McDonnel l Dougl as

bur den- shi f t i ng anal ysi s t o hel p t he par t i es " shar pen t he i nqui r y

i nt o t he el usi ve f act ual quest i on" of t he empl oyer ' s mot i vat i on.

Tex. Dep' t of Cmt y. Af f ai r s v. Burdi ne, 450 U. S. 248, 256 n. 8

( 1981) ; see al so J ohnson, 714 F. 3d at 53- 54. Under t hat f r amewor k,

t he pl ai nt i f f must f i r st est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of

di scr i mi nat i on. J ohnson, 714 F. 3d at 53. I f he succeeds, an

i nf er ence of di scr i mi nat i on ar i ses, and t he bur den of pr oduct i on

shi f t s t o t he def endant t o pr oduce evi dence t hat t he chal l enged

-9-


10/31

empl oyment act i on was t aken f or a l egi t i mat e, non- di scr i mi nat or y

r eason. I d. at 53- 54. I f t he empl oyer suppl i es such evi dence, t he

pl ai nt i f f i s l ef t wi t h t he bur den t o pr ove "by a pr eponder ance of

t he evi dence t hat t he empl oyer ' s prof f er ed r eason i s pr et extual and

t hat t he act ual r eason f or t he adver se empl oyment act i on i s

di scri mi nat or y. " I d. at 54.

To est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat i on, Ahmed

needed t o show t hat ( 1) he i s a member of a pr otected cl ass, ( 2) he

was qual i f i ed f or t he open posi t i on of Depor t at i on Of f i cer , ( 3) he

was deni ed the posi t i on, and (4) t he posi t i on was gi ven t o someone

wi t h si mi l ar or i nf er i or qual i f i cat i ons. See Goncal ves v. Pl ymout h

Cnt y. Sher i f f ' s Dep' t , 659 F. 3d 101, 105 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Aher n v.

Shi nseki , 629 F. 3d 49, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Al t hough t he di st r i ct

cour t acknowl edged t hat Ahmed had est abl i shed each of t hese

cr i t er i a, i t concl uded t hat he nonet hel ess had f ai l ed t o st at e a

pr i ma f aci e case agai nst " t he r ecommendi ng of f i cer s, " Lawl er and

Mart i n, because t hey submi t t ed t hei r r ecommendat i ons t o Chadbour ne

bef or e Ahmed appl i ed f or t he j ob. The cour t t hus f ocused t he

r emai nder of i t s anal ysi s sol el y on t he f i nal sel ect i ons made by

Chadbour ne.

We di sagr ee wi t h t he cour t ' s appr oach. Par t i cul ar l y when

t he r ecor d i s vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Ahmed, t he key

f act about t i mi ng i s t hat t he pr omot i ons wer e announced af t er he

appl i ed f or t he j ob. The r ecor d does not r eveal what pr eci pi t at ed

-10-


11/31

t he r equest f or a new l i st of qual i f i ed appl i cant s af t er Lawl er and

Mart i n had f orwarded t hei r r ecommendat i ons t o Chadbour ne on J ul y

27, but t he evi dence per mi t s t he i nf er ence t hat Lawl er and Mar t i n

wer e pr ovi ded t he new l i st s of cer t i f i ed i ndi vi dual s i n t i me t o

consi der Ahmed' s appl i cat i on. For exampl e, bot h say i n t hei r

af f i davi t s t hat t hey chose t he qual i f i cat i ons of t he t hr ee sel ected

i ndi vi dual s over Ahmed' s; nei t her says t hat he di d not have t he

oppor t uni t y t o consi der Ahmed' s appl i cat i on. 7

Mor eover , cont r ar y t o t he Depar t ment ' s asser t i on at or al

ar gument , t he recor d cont ai ns evi dence that woul d permi t a j ur y t o

f i nd that Chadbour ne al so knew t hat Ahmed had appl i ed bef ore t he

appoi nt ment s were announced. Most s i gni f i cant l y, Chadbour ne st ated

i n hi s af f i davi t t hat he had r evi ewed t he r ef er r al l i st s hi msel f ,

and he report ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat he "must have seen [Ahmed' s]

appl i cat i on as hi s name appear ed on t he l i st . " Chadbour ne al so

7 I n r esponse to t he quest i on "What speci f i cal l y caused you t or ecommend t he successf ul candi date(s) over t he Compl ai nant , " Lawl erst at ed, i n par t : " I r ecommended t hese i ndi vi dual s over Mr . Taharand ot her candi dates based upon my knowl edge of what t he posi t i onwoul d r equi r e of t hem. " I n r esponse t o t he quest i on "Why di d youspeci f i cal l y not r ecommend t he Compl ai nant , " he st at ed, i n par t :"Candi dat e/ appl i cant Tahar di d not have t he exper i ence of t hecandi dat es/ appl i cant s Ci ul l a, Leni han and Shepher d wi t h r egar d t ocase management over si ght . " Mar t i n' s af f i davi t si mi l ar l y expl ai nedt hat he di d not r ecommend Ahmed because " [ t ] hose r ecommended had

t he addi t i onal exper i ence of wor ki ng i n t he Tr avel Sect i on t hat t heCompl ai nant di d not have. " Fur t her , when Lawl er was asked at hi sdeposi t i on i f he had consi der ed per f or mance r at i ngs " f or t hesuccessf ul sel ect ees i n r el at i onshi p t o [Ahmed] , " Lawl er r espondedt hat he di d not t ake such r at i ngs i nt o account because he wasn' taware t here were any - - agai n suggest i ng t hat he di d at some poi ntconsi der bot h the sel ect ed i ndi vi dual s and Ahmed.

-11-


12/31

t est i f i ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat i t was "st andar d pr act i ce" f or t he

l i st s of cer t i f i ed appl i cant s t o be f or war ded f r om t he I CE Of f i ce

of Human Capi t al t o hi s of f i ce. Lawl er t est i f i ed t hat Mar t i n gave

hi m t he f i r st packet of appl i cat i on mat er i al s. Vi ewi ng t hi s

evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Ahmed, i t i s f ai r t o i nf er

t hat each set of appl i cat i ons was sent f r om t he Of f i ce of Human

Capi t al t o Chadbour ne' s of f i ce and t hat Chadbour ne ( or someone i n

hi s of f i ce) passed t he mat er i al s on t o Mar t i n, who then gave t hem

t o hi s subor di nat e, Lawl er , whose j ob i t was t o make t he pr omot i on

r ecommendat i ons t hat went back up t he l i ne t o Chadbour ne. Gi ven

t hi s evi dence, a j ur y coul d concl ude that al l t hr ee men knew at t he

end of August - - bef ore t he pr omot i ons were announced - - t hat Ahmed

had appl i ed.

I n addi t i on, t he recor d does not r eveal when Chadbour ne

made t he pr omot i on deci si ons. So f ar as we know, t he deci si ons

coul d have been made on t he days t hey wer e announced i n Sept ember

and Oct ober , wel l af t er Ahmed submi t t ed hi s appl i cat i on. Hence, we

must pr esume at t hi s poi nt t hat Lawl er and Mart i n had t he

oppor t uni t y t o r evi se t hei r r ecommendat i ons, based on the second

l i st of cer t i f i ed Gr ade 11 appl i cant s, bef or e Chadbour ne made hi s

sel ect i ons.

Accor di ngl y, we t r eat t he f ai l ur e t o pr omot e Ahmed as a

si ngl e deci si on made by t he t hr ee hi r i ng of f i ci al s. Al t hough

Lawl er made the i ni t i al sel ect i ons, Mar t i n' s and Chadbour ne' s

-12-


13/31

af f i davi t s r easonabl y may be r ead t o say t hat t hey al so wei ghed t he

candi dat es' qual i f i cat i ons bef or e endor si ng the r ecommendat i ons. 8

Gi ven t hese f act s, i t i s unnecessar y t o di st i ngui sh her e bet ween

t he r ecommendi ng empl oyees and t he ul t i mat e deci si onmaker . Cf .

St aub v. Pr oct or Hosp. , 131 S. Ct . 1186, 1189 ( 2011) ( consi der i ng

"t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch an empl oyer may be hel d l i abl e f or

empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on based on t he di scr i mi natory ani mus of an

empl oyee who i nf l uenced, but di d not make, t he ul t i mat e empl oyment

deci s i on") .

Ahmed t hus met hi s "modest bur den" t o est abl i sh a pr i ma

f aci e case agai nst each of t he hi r i ng of f i ci al s. Lockr i dge v.

Uni v. of Me. Sys. , 597 F. 3d 464, 470 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . The

Depar t ment , i n t ur n, has met i t s bur den t o i dent i f y a l egi t i mat e,

non- di scr i mi nat or y reason f or r ej ect i ng Ahmed' s pr omot i on: t he

empl oyer ' s concl usi on t hat t he chosen candi dat es had super i or

qual i f i cat i ons. 9 For pur poses of t he summary j udgment anal ysi s,

8 I n addi t i on t o the comment s descr i bed above, Chadbour nespeci f i cal l y not ed t hat he had "pr i or knowl edge" of Ci ul l a,Leni han, and Shepherd because t hey worked i n t he Bost on Fi el dOf f i ce.

9 Al t hough t he Depar t ment al so argued bef ore us t hat Ahmed wasnot sel ect ed because he appl i ed t oo l at e t o be consi der ed - - i . e. ,af t er Lawl er and Mar t i n made thei r r ecommendat i ons - - we have

expl ai ned why t he l at eness r at i onal e does not hol d up f act ual l y.Ahmed asser t s t hat t he i nadequacy of t hat r eason al l ows ani nf er ence of pr et ext . We agr ee t hat t hi s unsuppor t ed expl anat i onl ends addi t i onal wei ght t o our concl usi on t hat summary j udgment wasi mpr oper l y gr ant ed her e. I t does not , however , negat e t heDepar t ment ' s r el i ance on the supposedl y super i or qual i f i cat i ons oft he chosen appl i cant s. Our anal ysi s t her ef or e f ocuses on t hat

-13-


14/31


15/31

suppor t s t he i nf er ence t hat t he r eal r eason . . . was hi s age") ;

Dom nguez- Cr uz v. Sut t l e Car i be, I nc. , 202 F. 3d 424, 430 n. 5 ( 1st

Ci r . 2000) ( expl ai ni ng t hat "i nt r oduct i on of addi t i onal evi dence i s

not necessar i l y requi r ed" when pl ai nt i f f makes pr i ma f aci e showi ng

and adduces evi dence of pr etext ) ; Thomas v. East man Kodak Co. , 183

F. 3d 38, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( "Wher e t he di spar i t y i n t r eat ment i s

st r i ki ng enough, a j ur y may i nf er t hat r ace was t he cause,

especi al l y i f no expl anat i on i s of f er ed ot her t han t he r eason

r ej ected as pr et ext ual . ") .

I n ot her i nst ances, a j ur y' s det er mi nat i on t hat t he

empl oyer ' s expl anat i on i s pr et ext ual wi l l not i nevi t abl y reveal

di scr i mi nat i on. Thi s i s so because t he empl oyer may r esort t o a

pr et ext t o conceal an ar guabl y i nappr opr i at e, al bei t not unl awf ul ,

mot i vat i on, such as t o cur r y f avor wi t h a f r i end or f ami l y member .

See, e. g. , Bar r y v. Mor an, 661 F. 3d 696, 708 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( not i ng that "an empl oyment deci si on mot i vat ed by cr onyi sm, not

di scr i mi nat i on, woul d be l awf ul , t hough per haps unsavor y" ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Keyes v. Sec' y of t he Navy, 853 F. 2d

1016, 1027 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( st at i ng t he need f or evi dence

i ndi cat i ng t hat di scr i mi nat i on and not ot her f act or s, such as

"gar den- var i et y cr onyi sm, " i nf l uenced t he deci si onmaki ng pr ocess) .

Even wher e a cour t l ooks t o addi t i onal evi dence, however , t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s bur den i s not oner ous: "Al l a pl ai nt i f f has t o do i s

r ai se a genui ne i ssue of f act as t o whet her di scr i mi nat i on

-15-


16/31

mot i vat ed t he adver se empl oyment act i on. " Dom nguez- Cr uz, 202 F. 3d

at 433 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) ; see al so Pear son v. Mass.

Bay Tr ansp. Aut h. , 723 F. 3d 36, 40- 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "To def eat

summary j udgment , [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] must of f er some mi ni mal l y

suf f i ci ent evi dence, di r ect or i ndi r ect , bot h of pr et ext and of

[ t he empl oyer ' s] di scr i mi nat or y ani mus. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . The quest i on i s whet her t he r ecor d cont ai ns "speci f i c

and compet ent evi dence" f r om whi ch a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd

di scr i mi nat i on. Ger al d, 707 F. 3d at 16.

Wi t h these pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, we consi der bel ow whet her

a j ur y coul d concl ude on t hi s r ecor d t hat Ahmed was passed over f or

pr omot i on based on hi s r el i gi on, r ace, or nat i onal or i gi n.

C. Discussion

1. Pretext

The Depar t ment cont ends t hat t he deci si on t o promot e

Ci ul l a, Leni han, and Shepherd was unr el ated t o Ahmed' s r ace,

r el i gi on, or nat i onal or i gi n, and i nst ead r ef l ected t he hi r i ng

aut hor i t i es' genui ne deter mi nat i on t hat t hose thr ee men wer e t he

best appl i cant s f or t he Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i ons. Wi t hout

quest i on, t he r ecor d cont ai ns suf f i ci ent evi dence f or a j ur y t o

accept t he Depar t ment ' s expl anat i on. Lawl er , f or exampl e, ci t ed

hi s exper i ence as a manager over seei ng Depor t at i on Of f i cer s f or

more t han t wel ve years and hi s own ei ght years as a Deport at i on

-16-


17/31

Of f i cer when asser t i ng t hat he coul d i dent i f y good appl i cant s f or

t he j ob. He expl ai ned:

The pr i mar y r esponsi bi l i t y of a Depor t at i onOf f i cer i s t he abi l i t y t o over see l ar ge case

management . Appl i cant s Ci ul l a, Leni han andShepher d had al l pr evi ousl y been assi gned t ot he Tr avel Uni t , whi ch r equi r ed t hem t o wor kdi r ect l y wi t h t he Depor t at i on Of f i cer s i nover seei ng t he f i nal st eps of ef f ect i ng t her emoval of al i ens. Thei r i nvol vement woul di ncl ude knowl edge of t he pr ogr ess of t hei ndi vi dual cases, knowl edge of t he I mmi gr at i onand Nat i onal i t y Act , and i nt er act i on wi t h t heOf f i ce of Chi ef [ Counsel ] st af f on t hel egal i t y of a f i nal r emoval or der . Bei ngassi gned t o t he Travel Uni t r equi r ed const anti nt er act i on wi t h Depor t at i on Of f i cer s andSuper vi sor y Depor t at i on Of f i cer s i n t heover si ght of cases i n Removal pr oceedi ngs.Thi s r esponsi bi l i t y cer t ai nl y i nf l uenced mydeci si on.

Lawl er went on t o say that he deemed t he thr ee sel ect ed

appl i cant s bet t er f or t he posi t i on because they "wer e mor e capabl e

of per f or mi ng case management , whi ch i s t he pr i mar y responsi bi l i t y

of a Depor t at i on Of f i cer . " I n hi s deposi t i on, Lawl er st at ed t hat

" t he most i mport ant t ool " i n hi s deci si onmaki ng pr ocess was hi s

day- t o- day i nvol vement wi t h t he successf ul appl i cant s. He observed

t hat he deal t wi t h t he t hr ee men "on a r egul ar basi s, " and t hus

"had a r eal good i dea of t hei r wor k and t hei r abi l i t y t o per f or m

dut i es. " Mar t i n agr eed wi t h Lawl er ' s r ecommendat i on based on,

i nt er al i a, t he men' s exper i ences i n t he Tr avel Uni t " al ong wi t h

t hei r r eput at i on as pr oven per f or mer s. " Chadbour ne echoed hi s

subor di nat es' sent i ment s.

-17-


18/31

Ahmed, however , di sput es t he Depart ment ' s depi ct i on of

t he successf ul appl i cant s' qual i f i cat i ons and per f or mance. He

poi nt s i n par t i cul ar t o hi s extended assi gnment t o t he Cr i mi nal

Al i en Pr ogr am, whi ch he mai nt ai ns i s bet t er t r ai ni ng f or a

Depor t at i on Of f i cer t han exper i ence i n t he Tr avel Uni t . Cl ai mi ng

t hat no Tr avel Uni t empl oyee had pr evi ousl y been pr omoted t o

Depor t at i on Of f i cer , Ahmed descr i bes t he wor k t her e as per f unct or y

and, hence, not meani ngf ul pr epar at i on f or becomi ng a Depor t at i on

Of f i cer . He f ur t her cl ai ms t o have t r ai ned Leni han when t he l at t er

j oi ned t he CAP shor t l y bef or e hi s promot i on t o Depor t at i on Of f i cer .

I n addi t i on, Ahmed notes t hat he achi eved a hi gher scor e on t he

qual i f i cat i on test t han any of t he t hr ee men pr omot ed (97, compar ed

t o t hei r scor es of 96, 92, and 90) , and he cont r ast s hi s excel l ent

per f or mance hi st or y wi t h t he charact er i zat i on of Shepher d by one of

Shepher d' s super vi sor s as l azy and under per f or mi ng.

The Depar t ment mai ntai ns t hat Ahmed' s cl ai m of super i or

qual i f i cat i ons i s mer el y a subj ect i ve bel i ef unsuppor t ed by the

r ecor d. See Rat hbun v. Aut ozone, I nc. , 361 F. 3d 62, 74 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ( not i ng t hat "subj ect i ve evi dence of compet i ng qual i f i cat i ons

sel dom pr ovi des a pr i nci pl ed way f or a f act f i nder t o det er mi ne

whether a gi ven empl oyment deci si on, even i f wr ong- headed, was

anyt hi ng more than a garden- var i ety mi st ake i n corporate j udgment "

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . To t he cont r ar y, a r easonabl e

j ury coul d f i nd, on t hi s r ecor d, t hat ampl e evi dence cor r obor at es

-18-


19/31

Ahmed' s asser t i on t hat hi s I CE exper i ence was mor e rel evant t o t he

Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i on t han t hat of t he sel ect ed candi dat es

and t hat he had pr oven hi msel f t o be a si gni f i cant l y mor e val uabl e

empl oyee t han Shepherd. Wi t h r espect t o hi s per f ormance, as noted

above, t he r ecor d cont ai ns spar kl i ng appr ai sal s of Ahmed' s wor k and

at t i t ude, cont r ast i ng wi t h negat i ve r epor t s of Shepher d' s wor k

et hi c. Mel i nda Lul l , a super vi sor y Depor t at i on Of f i cer , st at ed i n

an af f i davi t t hat Ahmed "al ways per f or med at an out st andi ng l evel

whi l e under my supervi si on, " and noted i n a 2008 award nomi nat i on

t hat " [ h] e has an excel l ent knowl edge of t he l aws and pol i cy and

i t [ s] appl i cat i on t o hi s dai l y wor k pr oduct . " I n a 2007

per f or mance r evi ew, Lul l st at ed t hat "Ahmed i s one of t he t op

pr oducer s wi t hi n t he Cr i mi nal Al i en [ Pr ogr am] . " A co- wor ker , Kevi n

Wi l l i ams, pr ai sed hi mf or doi ng hi s j ob "beyond what was expect ed, "

and r epor t ed t hat Ahmed had est abl i shed cont act s wi t hi n "many ot her

l aw enf orcement depar t ment s t hat ha[ve] enabl ed hi m t o be more

ef f ect i ve i n hi s j ob. "

Meanwhi l e, Kei t h Fost er , an Af r i can- Amer i can who worked

as a supervi sor y I mmi gr at i on Enf orcement Agent i n t he Cr i mi nal

Al i en Progr am - - and super vi sed Ahmed f or about f i ve mont hs - -

descr i bed Shepher d as havi ng "one of t he wor st r eput at i ons as f ar

as j ust bei ng a l azy wor ker . " Fost er not ed t hat he and Shepher d

wer e f r i ends, but Fost er nonet hel ess consi der ed t he unf l at t er i ng

assessment t o be t r ue and had even di scussed i t wi t h Shepherd

-19-


20/31

hi msel f . Fost er al so r epor t ed t hat Shepher d was passed over f or a

t r ansf er t o t he CAP because of hi s wor k habi t s and t he vi ew t hat

"ot her peopl e . . . had mor e val ue, " and he r ecal l ed t hat Shepher d

"was pul l ed f r ombei ng a j ai l l i ai son because he was unr el i abl e and

. . . compl ai ni ng and not doi ng hi s dut i es. " 10

To be sure, Fost er woul d not be t he per f ect wi t ness t o

est abl i sh Shepher d' s def i ci enci es. Al t hough he wor ked wi t h

Shepher d, Fost er never di r ect l y super vi sed hi m and, l i ke Ahmed,

Fost er appl i ed f or t he 2009 Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i on and f i l ed

a di scr i mi nat i on cl ai mwhen he was not sel ect ed. Mor eover , Fost er

acknowl edged t hat hi s exper i ence wi t h Shepherd pr edated Shepherd' s

wor k i n t he Tr avel Uni t . Nonet hel ess, Fost er ' s r ol e as a

super vi sor and hi s mor e t han f i f t een year s wor ki ng at I CE and i t s

pr edecessor agency ( t he I mmi gr at i on and Nat ur al i zat i on Ser vi ce,

" I NS") woul d al l ow a j ur y t o cr edi t hi s assessment s. Hi s t est i mony

t hus cr eat es a f act ual di sput e concer ni ng t he r el at i ve qual i t i es of

Ahmed and Shepherd as empl oyees.

Ahmed' s evi dence al so count er ed t he sel ect i ng of f i ci al s'

asser t i on t hat wor k i n t he Tr avel Uni t - - t he t out ed exper i ence of

al l t hr ee sel ected appl i cant s - - was obj ect i vel y pr ef er abl e t o

work i n t he CAP. Fost er descr i bed t he CAP as "a much more

10 We obvi ousl y make no j udgment about t he accur acy of t hesechar act er i zat i ons of Shepher d. We mer el y not e t hi s negat i veassessment because i t i s evi dence t hat must be vi ewed i n Ahmed' sf avor on summar y j udgment .

-20-


21/31

demandi ng j ob" t han the Tr avel Uni t , observi ng that " [ a] nyone who

knows t he Tr avel Uni t knows i t ' s not di f f i cul t dut i es at al l . "

Fost er noted t hat most of t he peopl e who pr evi ousl y had been

pr omot ed t o Depor t at i on Of f i cer came f r om t he Cr i mi nal Al i en

Progr am. Though concedi ng possi bl e bi as because he had worked i n

t he CAP and not i n t he Tr avel Uni t , Fost er descr i bed t he CAP as

par t i cul ar l y good t r ai ni ng f or bei ng aDepor t at i on Of f i cer :

[ I ] f you wor k i n a CAP Uni t , t hat ' s t he bestexper i ence you can get t o underst and t he whol eoper at i on of how ever y j ob i n t here works.. . . [ Y] ou i ni t i at e cases. You i nt er vi ew.You det er mi ne t hei r i mmi grat i on st at us. Youhave t o appl y t he l aw. You have t o obt ai nt hei r cr i mi nal r ecor ds. You have t ocommuni cat e wi t h cour t s and . . . ot her l awenf or cement agenci es. You cr eat e t he case.The case, bef or e i t even goes t o t he . . .Depor t at i on Of f i cer , i s . . . creat ed by t heCAP Agent .

I n addi t i on, Ahmed undi sput edl y was a bet t er candi dat e i n one

r espect . Chadbour ne st ated t hat f l uency i n another l anguage was

one of t he consi der at i ons f or t he Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i on.

Ahmed has advanced l anguage ski l l s, whi l e t he t hr ee sel ectees do

not . 11 Al so, i t i s not ewor t hy t hat nei t her Leni han nor Shepher d

appear ed on t he second l i st of cer t i f i ed candi dat es, per haps

i ndi cat i ng t hat t hey had dr opped out of t he t op gr oup af t er

11 Ahmed' s r esume descr i bed hi s Ar abi c ski l l s as advanced.Ci ul l a descr i bed hi s Spani sh pr of i ci ency as "[ a] ccept abl e" and hi sI t al i an as " [ c] ompet ent . " Leni han and Shepherd bot h r epor t ed"[ n] ovi ce" Spani sh ski l l s.

-21-


22/31

addi t i onal appl i cat i ons wer e submi t t ed. 12 Thi s evi dence, t aken

t oget her , goes f ar beyond a sel f - i nt er est ed asser t i on by Ahmed t hat

he was "mor e qual i f i ed t han t he successf ul . . . aspi r ant s. " I d.

Ahmed' s cont ent i on t hat t he deci si onmaker s' r el i ance on

qual i f i cat i ons i s pr et ext ual i s f ur t her suppor t ed by t he sel ect i on

pr ocess i t sel f . None of t he t hr ee hi r i ng of f i ci al s sought

i nf ormat i on about t he appl i cant s beyond the document s pr ovi ded by

t he I CE Of f i ce of Human Capi t al . They di d not i nt er vi ew any of t he

aspi r ant s and di d not r evi ew any per sonnel r ecor ds. Lawl er

acknowl edged t hat he made no at t empt t o consul t wi t h t he

super vi sor s or co- wor ker s of i ndi vi dual s on t he l i st bef or e maki ng

hi s recommendat i ons. Al t hough Ci ul l a, Leni han, and Shepherd were

al l under Lawl er i n t he chai n of command, he was not t hei r

i mmedi at e super i or and pr esumabl y coul d have l ear ned more about

t hei r capabi l i t i es and per f or mance f r om di r ect super vi sor s.

We do not mean t o suggest t hat i t was i mpr oper f or t he

hi r i ng of f i ci al s t o make t he pr omot i on deci si ons wi t hout i ncl udi ng

12 Based on hi s r at i ng on t he assessment quest i onnai r e,Shepherd was ranked t hi r t eent h out of sevent een appl i cant s on t hef i r st l i st of cer t i f i ed candi dat es sent by t he Of f i ce of HumanCapi t al f or t he Gr ade 9 posi t i on and f our t eent h out of sevent eenf or t he Gr ade 11 posi t i on. Leni han was r anked ni nt h on t he Gr ade

9 l i st and t ent h on t he Gr ade 11 l i st . Ci ul l a was ranked secondand t hi r d. On t he l at er l i st s, Ahmed was r anked t hi r d f or t heGr ade 9 posi t i on out of t went y l i st ed appl i cant s and f i f t h f or t heGr ade 11 posi t i on. Ci ul l a was r anked ei ght h and ni nt h. Al t hought he cut of f score f or t he second Gr ade 11 l i st was r epor t ed as 92,and t he evi dence i s t hat Leni han had a scor e of 92, [ Dkt . 38- 2] hewas not i ncl uded on t hat l i st .

-22-


23/31

t hese st eps i n t he eval uat i on pr ocess. We have r epeat edl y

r ecogni zed t hat i t i s not our pl ace t o second- guess an empl oyer ' s

l egi t i mat e busi ness deci si ons, see, e. g. , Goncal ves, 659 F. 3d at

107; Rathbun, 361 F. 3d at 74, and we woul d over st ep our bounds i f

we i mposed our vi ew of an appr opr i ate sel ect i on pr ocess on t hese

deci si onmaker s. I ndeed, Chadbour ne of f er ed a pl ausi bl e expl anat i on

f or t he cur t ai l ed pr ocess when he t est i f i ed t hat t he agency "[ m] any

t i mes" di d not do i nt er vi ews i f t her e wer e a number of i n- house

appl i cant s. He el abor at ed: "Ther e wasn' t a need t o, because we

knew t he peopl e. We knew t hei r wor k pr oduct . " I n addi t i on, Lawl er

noted t hat he may have spoken about t he appl i cant s t o t hei r

super vi sor s i n t he past si nce " [ w] e al l wor ked i n t he same of f i ce, "

and he al so sai d he "const ant l y woul d communi cat e wi t h [ hi s]

super vi sor s about t hei r st af f . " Mor eover , i t i s undi sput ed t hat

Chadbour ne was aut hor i zed t o hi r e any of t he appl i cant s cer t i f i ed

by the Of f i ce of Human Capi t al .

The ext ent of t he deci si onmakers' ef f or t s t o gat her

i nf or mat i on about t he candi dat es i s r el evant her e, however , on t he

i ssue of pr et ext . Ahmed cont ends t hat t he t hr ee of f i ci al s di d not

genui nel y bel i eve t hat Ci ul l a, Leni han, and Shepher d wer e t he best

qual i f i ed appl i cant s, and t hat t hose of f i ci al s sel ected t hr ee l ess

capabl e appl i cant s over hi m because of hi s r ace, r el i gi on, or

-23-


24/31

nat i onal or i gi n. 13 Evi dence t hat t he hi r i ng of f i ci al s di d not seek

out al l per t i nent i nf or mat i on about t he candi dat es' abi l i t i es and

j ob per f or mance woul d suppor t t hat t heor y; t he j uror s coul d i nf er

f r om a l i mi t ed i nqui r y t hat t he of f i ci al s f al sel y cl ai med t o have

sought t he best candi dat es f or pr omot i on.

The r ecor d t hus per mi t s t wo subst ant i al l y di f f er ent

por t r ayal s of Ahmed' s candi dacy as compar ed t o t hose of Ci ul l a,

Leni han, and Shepherd. I n one vi ew, Ahmed' s l anguage ski l l s and

l ong- t er m t enur e i n t he Cr i mi nal Al i en Pr ogr am pr ovi ded hi m wi t h

t he most per t i nent r esume f or t he Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i on, and

hi s exempl ar y recor d st ands i n st ar k cont r ast t o Shepher d' s

r eput at i on as an under - per f or mer . I n addi t i on, t he sel ect i on

pr ocess r ef l ect ed a per f unct or y or non- exi st ent i nqui r y f r om

r eadi l y avai l abl e sour ces i nt o t he appl i cant s' r el at i ve

qual i f i cat i ons. I n t he ot her vi ew, Ci ul l a, Leni han and Shepher d

wer e t he candi dat es bet t er sui t ed f or t he posi t i on because of t hei r

abi l i t y and wi l l i ngness t o per f or mt he demandi ng wor k of t he Tr avel

Uni t , and Lawl er was wel l posi t i oned t o make t hi s assessment

because he had f i r st - hand knowl edge of t hei r work.

Det er mi ni ng whi ch vi ew mor e accur at el y r ef l ect s r eal i t y

r equi r es f act f i ndi ng and credi bi l i t y j udgment s t hat ar e pr oper l y

13 Of cour se, f or Ahmed t o pr evai l , a j ur y woul d need t o f i ndonl y t hat t he deci si onmakers chose one appl i cant who was l essqual i f i ed t han hi m based on di scr i mi nat or y ani mus. Thi s woul d beenough even i f t he other t wo sel ected f or pr omot i on were equal l y ormore qual i f i ed t han Ahmed.

-24-


25/31

t he t ask of a j ur y. Ahmed' s cl ai m of pr et ext woul d be

si gni f i cant l y advanced i f t he j ur y f ound t hat t he Cr i mi nal Al i en

Pr ogr am has t r adi t i onal l y been r ecogni zed as t he best t r ai ni ng

gr ound f or Depor t at i on Of f i cer s, and t hat t he Tr avel Uni t i s wi del y

acknowl edged as l ess demandi ng. Such f i ndi ngs woul d undermi ne t he

Depar t ment ' s i nsi st ence that t he sel ected candi dat es had more

oppor t uni t y to devel op t he ski l l s needed by Depor t at i on Of f i cer s.

Si mi l ar l y, a j ur y coul d choose t o cr edi t t he negat i ve evi dence

concer ni ng Shepher d' s wor k habi t s and t hus di scr edi t t he hi r i ng

of f i ci al s' pr of essed r el i ance on t he qual i t y of t he successf ul

candi dates' per f ormance.

As expl ai ned above, however , t he j ur y woul d need t o

concl ude not onl y t hat t he Depar t ment ' s r at i onal e i s pr et extual ,

but al so t hat i t s asser t ed qual i f i cat i ons- based pr ef er ence f or t he

sel ect ed appl i cant s conceal s an i mper mi ssi bl e di scr i mi nat or y

mot i vat i on. We t her ef ore now consi der whet her Ahmed has adduced

"mi ni mal l y suf f i ci ent evi dence" t o per mi t a r easonabl e f act f i nder

t o concl ude that he was not pr omot ed on account of hi s r el i gi on,

r ace, or nat i onal or i gi n. See Pear son, 723 F. 3d at 41 ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

2. Discriminatory Animus

As an i ni t i al mat t er , we r ej ect any suggest i on t hat a

f i ndi ng of di scr i mi nat or y ani mus r equi r es evi dence t hat t he

deci si onmaker s knew speci f i cal l y t hat Ahmed i s a Musl i mand nat i ve

-25-


26/31

of Al ger i a. The r ecor d cont ai ns mor e t han adequate evi dence f r om

whi ch a r easonabl e j ur y coul d det er mi ne t hat t he deci si onmaker s

vi ewed Ahmed as a member of mul t i pl e mi nor i t y groups. As not ed

above, Chadbour ne t est i f i ed t hat he bel i eved Ahmed was Af r i can-

Amer i can, an i mpr essi on evi dent l y based on vi sual observat i on and,

hence, l i kel y t o be shar ed by Lawl er and Mar t i n. A j ur y al so coul d

f i nd t hat al l t hr ee men knew, or bel i eved, t hat Ahmed was of Ar ab

her i t age. Hi s name i s suggest i ve, 14 and hi s r esume st ates t hat he

has advanced ski l l s i n r eadi ng, wr i t i ng, and speaki ng Ar abi c.

Chadbour ne st at ed that he had heard t hat Ahmed was Lebanese.

Fur t her , Fost er t est i f i ed that he had hear d Ahmed' s f or mer

super vi sor and " [ a] l ot of peopl e" addr ess Ahmed as " Habi bi " - - an

Ar abi c gr eet i ng t hat i s commonl y underst ood t o mean " f r i end" or

"dar l i ng" - - and he al so repor t ed speaki ng wi t h other empl oyees

about Ahmed bei ng a Musl i m. A j ur y r easonabl y coul d concl ude t hat

Lawl er , Mar t i n, and Chadbour ne were exposed t o such exchanges,

par t i cul ar l y gi ven Ahmed' s t est i mony that he " i nt er act [ ed] wi t h

upper management on a dai l y basi s, and I know t hemal l personal l y. "

The quest i on r emai ns whet her Ahmed has al so adduced t he

r equi si t e evi dence t o per mi t a j ur y t o f i nd t hat hi s r ace,

r el i gi on, or her i t age pl ayed a mot i vat i ng r ol e i n t he deci si on t o

bypass hi mf or pr omot i on. Al t hough t he r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence

14 I ndeed, Chadbour ne acknowl edged t hat t he name woul d causehi m t o suspect t hat Ahmed i s of Ar ab ancest r y.

-26-


27/31

of over t di scr i mi nat or y conduct or r emar ks, t he McDonnel l - Dougl as

f r amewor k i s pr emi sed on t he r eal i t y t hat " [ o] ut r i ght admi ssi ons of

i mper mi ssi bl e [ di scr i mi nat or y] mot i vat i on ar e i nf r equent . " Hunt v.

Cr omar t i e, 526 U. S. 541, 553 ( 1999) ; see al so, e. g. , Vl ez, 585

F. 3d at 446 ( not i ng t hat empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on pl ai nt i f f s

" r ar el y possess ' smoki ng gun' evi dence t o pr ove t hei r empl oyer s'

di scr i mi nat or y mot i vat i ons") . Mor eover , "unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on

can st em f r om st er eot ypes and ot her t ypes of cogni t i ve bi ases, as

wel l as f r om consci ous ani mus. " Thomas, 183 F. 3d at 59; see al so

Br ay v. Mar r i ot t Hot el s, 110 F. 3d 986, 993 ( 3d Ci r . 1997) ( not i ng

t hat Ti t l e VI I shoul d "not be appl i ed i n a manner t hat i gnor es t he

sad r eal i t y t hat [ di scr i mi nat or y] ani mus can al l t oo easi l y war p an

i ndi vi dual ' s per spect i ve t o t he poi nt t hat he or she never

consi der s t he member of a pr ot ect ed cl ass t he ' best ' candi dat e

r egar dl ess of t hat per son' s credent i al s") . Hence, a pl ai nt i f f ' s

showi ng of unl awf ul ani mus wi l l not necessar i l y be deemed

i nadequat e f or l ack of expl i ci t l y di scri mi nat or y behavi or s.

As expl ai ned above, suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t a

f i ndi ng of pr et ext , i n combi nat i on wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f ' s pr i ma f aci e

showi ng, can suf f i ce at t i mes t o r ai se an i nf er ence of

di scr i mi nat i on t hat wi l l def eat summary j udgment . See Dom nguez-

Cr uz, 202 F. 3d at 430 n. 5. Her e, however , we have mor e t han that

combi nat i on. An empl oyer ' s "gener al pol i cy and pr act i ce wi t h

r espect t o mi nor i t y empl oyment " can be si gni f i cant i n assessi ng

-27-


28/31

di scr i mi nat or y ani mus, and Ahmed has of f er ed t el l i ng evi dence of a

pat t er n of bypassi ng mi nor i t i es f or pr omot i on i n I CE' s Bost on

of f i ce. McDonnel l Dougl as Cor p. , 411 U. S. at 804- 05; see al so

Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 824,

Most si gni f i cant l y, t he r ecor d r eveal s a hi st or y of

hi r i ng and pr omot i ons t hat ent i r el y excl uded Af r i can- Amer i cans and,

per haps, Musl i ms f r om Depor t at i on Of f i cer posi t i ons i n Bost on.

Chadbour ne conceded t he absence of bl ack Deport at i on Of f i cer s i n

t hat of f i ce t hr oughout hi s t enur e as Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or , 15 t hough

he emphasi zed hi s sel ect i on of t he one Af r i can- Amer i can who hel d

t hat posi t i on i n any of t he New Engl and I CE of f i ces ( i n Har t f or d) .

Chadbour ne al so r eport ed t hat , t o hi s knowl edge, t here were no Ar ab

or Musl i m Depor t at i on Of f i cer s i n Bost on dur i ng t hat t i me.

I n addi t i on, Ahmed pr oduced evi dence depi ct i ng an

at mospher e i n the Bost on of f i ce t hat was unwel comi ng t o mi nor i t i es

and hi nder ed t hei r advancement . I n hi s af f i davi t , Ahmed asser t ed

t hat "i t i s wi del y known l ocal l y, as wel l as nat i onal l y, t hat [ t he

Bost on of f i ce] i s not di ver sel y popul at ed, " and si mi l ar

obser vat i ons were made by an Hi spani c I mmi gr at i on Enf orcement

Agent i n t he Bost on of f i ce, Ef r ai n Per ez:

Si nce I ' ve been her e the of f i ce has never

shown a raci al bal ance wi t h r espect t o

15 Chadbour ne was assi st ant di r ect or f or t he I NS i n Bost on f orsi xt een year s bef or e bei ng appoi nt ed act i ng Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect orf or I CE i n 2003. He f or mal l y assumed t he di r ect or ' s posi t i on i n2004 and remai ned i n t hat r ol e unt i l hi s r et i r ement i n 2011.

-28-


29/31

pr omot i ons. There are no mi nor i t y pr omot i onsi n t he of f i ce and t he number of mi nor i t yempl oyees ar e r eal , r eal l ow her e. Most al lsuper vi sor s are Whi t e.

. . . They don' t r ecrui t or encour age

mi nor i t i es to put i n f or j obs. I know not t oput i n an appl i cat i on f or a j ob because Ial r eady know t hat I ' m not goi ng t o get i t .Ther e i s no encour agement f or mi nor i t i es t oput i n f or j obs. Management grooms t hosepeopl e t hey want t o pr omot e and t hey ar eal ways Caucasi ans.

At t he t i me of hi s af f i davi t i n 2010, 16 Per ez had been worki ng i n

t he i mmi gr at i on agency f or ei ght een year s.

Gi ven t he hi st or i cal evi dence showi ng a compl ete absence

of bl ack and Ar ab Depor t at i on Of f i cer s i n t he Bost on of f i ce

t hr oughout Chadbour ne' s t enur e, 17 and an envi r onment i n whi ch

Hi spani cs, accor di ng t o Per ez, al so f el t di scour aged about appl yi ng

f or pr omot i on, t hi s i s not a case i n whi ch "al l owi ng t he f ai l ur e-

t o- pr omot e cl ai m[ ] t o go f or war d woul d be an i nvi t at i on t o t he j ur y

t o engage i n unbr i dl ed specul at i on. " Rat hbun, 361 F. 3d at 77.

16 Per ez' s af f i davi t was pr epar ed i n connect i on wi t h Fost er ' scompl ai nt .

17 Mar t i n and Lawl er al so wer e l ong- t er m empl oyees i n t heBost on of f i ce. Lawl er st at ed i n hi s 2010 af f i davi t t hat he hadbeen "a manager over seei ng Depor t at i on Of f i cer s i n [ t he Bost on]Fi el d Of f i ce f or mor e t han t wel ve year s. " He al so t est i f i ed t hat

he had ser ved as i nt er i m Deput y Fi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or f or aboutf i f t een mont hs, i n 2003 and 2004, and became Ass i st ant Fi el d Of f i ceDi r ect or i n l at e 2005 or ear l y 2006. Mart i n' s empl oyment wi t h thei mmi gr at i on agency began i n 1991. So f ar as we can t el l , t her ecord does not i ndi cat e how l ong he had been ser vi ng as Deput yFi el d Of f i ce Di r ect or at t he t i me of t he hi r i ng pr ocess at i ssueher e. He was based i n t he Bost on of f i ce at l east si nce 2005.

-29-


30/31

Rat her , t hi s backdr op, 18 i n combi nat i on wi t h a f i ndi ng of pr et ext

i n t he Depar t ment ' s ar t i cul at ed r at i onal e f or choosi ng t hr ee whi t e

mal e appl i cant s, woul d per mi t a reasonabl e j ur y t o f i nd t hat Ahmed

was a vi ct i mof di scr i mi nat i on based on one or mor e of hi s mi nor i t y

char acter i st i cs.

III.

I n sum, we concl ude t hat Ahmed' s pr of f ered evi dence

r ai ses mat er i al di sput es of f act t hat f or ecl ose summar y j udgment .

At t r i al , t he j ur y wi l l have t he oppor t uni t y t o assess t he

qual i f i cat i ons evi dence, i ncl udi ng t he compar at i ve val ue of

exper i ence i n t he Cr i mi nal Al i en Pr ogr am and Tr avel Uni t , and t he

cr edi bi l i t y of t he t hr ee deci si onmaker s i n det er mi ni ng whet her

Ahmed has pr oven a vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I . See Sant i ago- Ramos v.

Cent enni al P. R. Wi r el ess Cor p. , 217 F. 3d 46, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2000)

( "[ C] our t s shoul d exer ci se par t i cul ar caut i on bef or e gr ant i ng

summary j udgment f or empl oyers on such i ssues as pretext , mot i ve,

and i nt ent . ") .

Accor di ngl y, t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t i s

vacat ed, and the case i s r emanded f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs

consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

18 Al t hough t he hi st or i cal evi dence has not yet been shown t obe st at i st i cal l y si gni f i cant , see Freeman v. Package Machi ner y Co. ,865 F. 2d 1331, 1334 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( not i ng exper t ' s t est i mony t hatst at i st i cal dat a r eveal ed a pat t er n "t ot al l y consi st ent wi t h apr act i ce of age di scri mi nat i on") , i t i s ci r cumst ant i al evi dencet hat may i nf or m t he j ur y' s eval uat i on of t he deci si onmaker s'act i ons.

-30-


31/31

So or der ed. Cost s t o appel l ant .

-31-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Ahmed v. Napolitano, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents