F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
May 24, 2007
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
K A TH Y SA N TA N A ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 05-1111
CITY AND COU NTY OF DENVER,
Defendant-Appellee.
A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FO R TH E D istrict of Colorado
(D.C. NO . 03-CV-00774)
David L. W orstell (Robert W . Kiensnowski, Jr., with him on the briefs) of
W orstell & Kiensnowski, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert A. W olf (M indi L. W right, with him on the brief), Denver City Attorney’s
Office, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BR ISC OE, M cCO NNELL, and SILER, * Circuit Judges.
SILER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Kathy Santana appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment dismissing her gender discrimination claims against the City and
*
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for
the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
County of Denver, Colorado (the “City”). Santana, a sergeant with the Denver
Sheriff’s Department, claims disparate treatment and disparate impact
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2, et seq., state law breach of contract for failure to promote, and error by
the district court in its discovery rulings. For the reasons stated below, we
REV ER SE and R EM A N D with respect to Santana’s disparate impact claim
against the City. W e A FFIR M summary judgment for the City on all other
claims.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
Santana began w orking for the D enver Sheriff’s Department in 1977 as a
deputy sheriff. She was promoted to the rank of sergeant in 1992. In 2000, she
applied for a promotion to the position of captain. As part of the application
process, she completed the required skills assessment examination, scoring a 93.3
out of a possible 100. The Career Service Authority then certified her, along with
other top scoring candidates, to be interviewed by the Sheriff’s Department. The
interview consisted of three questions and candidates were provided as much time
as they needed to fully respond.
Santana acknowledged that she did not perform well during her interview.
She explained that she found it difficult “to go in front of three of [her]
supervisors” and felt it was “very hard to promote [herself]” in an interview
setting. According to the interviewers, Santana appeared to be uncomfortable,
-2-
became emotional, and did not answer the questions completely. W hen asked by
the panelists if she was upset, Santana admitted that she was.
At the conclusion of the interview process, the panelists each developed a
list of their top six or eight candidates in descending rank order. Santana was not
included as a top candidate on any interviewer’s list. The rankings were later
compiled into one list, and thereafter, according to the City, individuals were
promoted off the master list in descending rank order. Over a two-year period,
the Sheriff’s Department promoted a total of ten sergeants to the rank of captain,
including eight men and two women. The second female received her promotion
to captain only after the first female resigned.
Santana alleges that she and other w omen not selected for promotion were
more qualified and more experienced than the males ultimately chosen. She
argues that the City’s proffered non-discriminatory reason for not promoting her –
poor interview performance – was merely a pretext for gender discrimination.
Furthermore, she contends that the promotion process was biased against women,
and, therefore, resulted in a disparate impact on female candidates.
Applying the familiar burden-shifting framew ork of M cDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973), the district court first found that
Santana did state a prima facie case of gender discrimination because she
demonstrated that she was qualified for the rank of captain. She had received
outstanding recommendations and past performance evaluations, she had higher
-3-
scores on several objective promotion criteria than some of the promoted males,
and she had extensive experience as a supervisor. The court next determined that
the City had set forth legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring male
candidates instead of Santana, primarily that Santana performed poorly in her
interview. Finally, it concluded that Santana did not establish a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether the proffered legitimate reasons were a pretext for
gender discrimination.
As to Santana’s disparate impact claim, the district court first denied
summary judgment but later dismissed the claim for lack of standing. It reasoned
that under Coe v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 646 F.2d 444, 451 (10th Cir. 1981),
Santana has standing to bring her disparate impact claim only if she was the
“victim of discrimination by the general practice which allegedly resulted in a
discriminatory impact on a protected group.” Because the court had dismissed
Santana’s disparate treatment claim, it concluded that she could not show that she
was a victim of a discriminatory promotion process that was adversely impacting
women in the Sheriff’s Department. Thus, the court held that Santana has not
suffered an injury-in-fact and does not have standing to advance the remaining
disparate impact claim.
The district court also granted summary judgment on Santana’s breach of
contract claim. It found that the Denver Charter provisions and the accompanying
Career Services Rules govern her employment with the City as an implied
-4-
employment contract. These provisions require that all appointments or
promotions of employees be made solely upon merit and ability to perform the
work and through a process including a skills assessment examination and
interviews. They also prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed,
national origin, sex, or political affiliations. However, because the district court
concluded that the City did not participate in discriminatory treatment in failing
to promote Santana, the C ity did not breach the employment contract. The court
also noted that “[a] disparate impact claim does not result in a breach of contract
based on personnel policies and procedures where those procedures were followed
yet promotion disparities nonetheless occurred.”
II. Discussion
W e review the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City de
novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Santana and resolving all
reasonable inferences in her favor. Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220
F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the City is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c).
A. Disparate Treatment
Neither party disputes the district court’s determination that Santana has
established a prima facie case of gender discrimination. Therefore, the only issue
-5-
on appeal is whether Santana raises a genuine factual dispute concerning pretext.
W e conclude that she did not.
In a Title VII disparate treatment claim, once a prima facie case has been
established, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason for not promoting the plaintiff. Texas Dep’t of Cmty.
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). After the defendant has offered its
non-discriminatory explanation, the prima facie case is rebutted and the burden of
proving pretext shifts back to the plaintiff. Id. at 255.
A plaintiff may establish pretext by show ing “such w eaknesses,
implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the
employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder
could rationally find them unw orthy of credence and hence infer that the
employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons.” M organ v.
Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Olson v. Gen. Elec.
Astrospace, 101 F.3d 947, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1996)). However, “mere conjecture
that [an] employer’s explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is an
insufficient basis for denial of summary judgment.” Branson v. Price River Coal
Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir. 1988).
The City submits that Santana was not promoted because of her poor
interview performance. The panelists recalled that Santana had been very
emotional and seemed unable to endure the stress of the interview. Consequently,
-6-
they questioned whether she would be able to withstand the stress associated with
a captain’s duties and responsibilities.
Santana counters w ith the following two arguments as to why we should
reject the City’s justification and infer pretext: (1) the evidence shows that she
was significantly more qualified for promotion to captain than one of the men
who was promoted, and (2) the promotional process was very subjective.
W e will draw an inference of pretext where “the facts assure us that the
plaintiff is better qualified than the other candidates for the position.” Jones v.
Barnhart, 349 F.3d 1260, 1267 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Rea v. M artin M arietta
Corp., 29 F.3d 1450, 1457-58 (10th Cir. 1994)). W e have cautioned that “pretext
cannot be shown simply by identifying minor differences between plaintiff’s
qualifications and those of successful applicants,” but only by demonstrating an
“overw helming” merit disparity. Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc., 186 F.3d
1301, 1319 (10th Cir. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Nat’l R.R. Passenger
Corp. v. M organ, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). M oreover, we acknowledge that it is not
our role to “act as a super personnel department that second guesses employers’
business judgments.” Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel Dep’t of M ental Health &
Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1329 (10th Cir. 1999).
Here, Santana compares herself to James Leahy, who was promoted to
captain in the Relief Factor M anagement System (“RFM S”) unit, and claims that
she was significantly more qualified for this position. She points to her higher
-7-
skills assessment exam score and her greater experience, both as a sergeant and
specifically as a supervisor in the specialized RFM S office. However, Santana
does not argue that her interview performance was stronger than Leahy’s.
Instead, she contrasts her exceptional annual review s to Leahy’s allegedly
substandard work as a captain in the RFM S unit.
Santana’s evidence fails to establish an “overwhelming” disparity between
her qualifications and those of Leahy. Both candidates received assessment
scores high enough to be placed in a pool of candidates qualified for a promotion
to captain. Once applicants reached the interview process, the panelists were free
to select any of the candidates in the group without regard to score. Therefore,
Santana’s higher score alone does not demonstrate pretext. See Jones v.
Barnhart, 349 F.3d 1260, 1267 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a promotional
candidate’s higher assessment-panel score w as not dispositive of pretext where
the scores served as an initial separation of qualified from unqualified applicants).
Santana’s argument also overlooks our practice of assessing pretext by
examining “the facts as they appear to the person making the decision to [promote
the] plaintiff.” Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1231. Santana concedes that the annual
reviews were not considered in the promotion process. Furthermore, evidence of
Leahy’s performance as a captain could not have been considered at the time
promotional decisions were made. W e agree with the district court that “[m]any
of M s. Santana’s proffered arguments are simply her subjective opinion that she
-8-
was better qualified and the male applicants were less qualified.” See Simms, 165
F.3d at 1329-30 (an employee’s opinion about his or her qualifications does not
give rise to a material factual dispute).
However, evidence of pretext may include the use of subjective criteria.
Sim m s, 165 F.3d at 1328. Although “[s]ubjective considerations are not unlawful
per se[,] . . . [o]bviously subjective decision making provides an opportunity for
unlawful discrimination.” Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1046 (10th Cir. 1981).
Santana argues that the promotion process at issue here provided just such an
outlet for discrimination. She claims the panelists applied no selection criteria
“against which candidates can be measured,” resulting in a “selection process
based upon much more subjective and amorphous standards, known and
fathomable only to the decision maker.” W hile there is certainly a level of
subjectivity in any interview-based selection process, Santana provides no
evidence that the interviewers used their discretion as a means for unlawful
discrimination. The panelists asked every applicant the same three questions and
then ranked the candidates based on their responses. Santana never discredits the
City’s explanation that she was not ranked highly, and therefore not selected,
because she did not answ er the questions completely. The interview ers thought,
and Santana agreed, that she did not present herself as a strong candidate for
captain. In sum, Santana has failed to “raise a genuine doubt about Defendant’s
motivation,” EEOC v. Horizon/CM S Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184, 1200 (10th
-9-
Cir. 2000), or produce evidence refuting or showing that the Sheriff’s
Department’s stated reasons for not promoting her were implausible, inconsistent,
or unworthy of credence. Thus, summary judgment was proper.
B. Disparate Impact
W e turn next to Santana’s assertion that the promotional interview process
had a disparate impact on female candidates. After reviewing the district court’s
standing analysis, we find that Santana’s claim was improperly dismissed.
As the trial court correctly observed, constitutional standing requirements
apply with equal force to Title VII discrimination claims. Santana must
demonstrate her “personal stake in the outcome of the case” by showing that
“[she] had been denied an available position for which [she] was qualified.” Coe
v. Yellow Freight, 646 F.2d at 451. The record reveals that Santana has done just
that. In Coe, the plaintiff was unable to point to an available position for which
he was qualified. Id. Here, Santana undisputedly met the minimum qualifications
necessary to be considered for promotion to the open position of captain. She
asserts that she was the victim of discrimination because the interview selection
process resulted in a disparate impact on female candidates. She therefore meets
the standing requirements as set forth in Coe.
The district court’s contrary conclusion implies that where a plaintiff’s
disparate treatment claim is dismissed, she lacks standing to proceed under a
disparate impact theory. Such a holding conflates the two distinct theories of
-10-
discrimination. A claim of disparate impact, as opposed to disparate treatment,
does not require a showing of discriminatory motive or intent. Id. at 450;
M elendez v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 79 F.3d 661, 669-70 (7th Cir. 1996)
(concluding that a failure to prove discriminatory intent as to a disparate
treatment claim does not preclude success on a disparate impact claim). For
Santana to have standing to proceed with a disparate impact claim, she need not
demonstrate that the interviewers rated her poorly because of her gender.
Therefore, the district court erred by dismissing Santana’s disparate impact claim
for lack of standing.
C. State Law Breach of Contract
W e agree with the district court’s resolution of Santana’s state law claim
for breach of contract. Santana argues that “[p]roof of intentional discrimination
is not an element to prove a breach of contract claim.” However, because she
failed to prove intentional discrimination, she cannot show that the C ity’s
promotion process was not based solely upon merit and the ability to perform the
work. Santana has not presented evidence that the City breached any of the
provisions of the Denver Charter and the accompanying Career Services Rules.
Summary judgment was proper.
D. Testimony of Dr. Lynn Sanders
After the close of discovery, Santana requested to re-open discovery in
order to take the deposition of Dr. Lynn Sanders, an official at the Denver County
-11-
Jail who allegedly witnessed discriminatory conduct in 1996. According to
Santana, Dr. Sanders’ deposition testimony would show pretext and that all
promotions were a sham.
W e review discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. Smith v. United
States, 834 F.2d 166, 169 (10th Cir. 1987). Santana did not disclose D r. Sanders’
purported testimony through Rule 26 disclosure or written responses to discovery
requests. The district court upheld the magistrate judge’s ruling, finding that
Santana did not exercise due diligence in regard to this witness. Dr. Sanders was
available to Santana before discovery closed, yet, without good cause, Santana
failed to disclose her as a witness until after the discovery deadline. The district
court acted within the bounds of discretion in enforcing the discovery deadline.
E. Discovery
Santana’s final argument is that the magistrate judge’s September 2004
order excluding any witness and exhibits not listed in the pre-trial order was an
abuse of discretion. Defendants moved to strike 36 exhibits from the final
pretrial order that had never been disclosed by Santana, or were disclosed after
the close of discovery. The magistrate judge agreed and excluded any exhibits
that were not listed or designated in a timely fashion. The district court affirmed
that decision. Santana responds that the court could not effectively consider
exhibits that were never submitted to the court for review . She further asserts
that there was no harm in admitting the documents because the trial date had been
-12-
delayed. W e agree with the district court. It is generally not an abuse of
discretion for a court to exclude evidence based upon failure to timely designate.
See generally Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744, 749 (4th Cir. 1993)
(finding no abuse of discretion and upholding the denial of motion for additional
discovery because there had been adequate time for discovery and the requesting
party had not made a timely request); Turnage v. Gen. Elec. Co., 953 F.2d 206,
208-09 (5th Cir. 1992) (finding no abuse of discretion and upholding the denial of
a discovery motion because requesting party had failed to make the request until
trial was imminent and the discovery deadline w as impending).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of
sum mary judgment to the C ity on Santana’s claim of disparate impact, and we
R EM A N D for further proceedings on that claim. In all other respects, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRM ED. W e GR ANT Santana’s motion to supplement
the record.