FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 30, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
VIMALA AGRAWAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 13-6085
(D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00164-M)
ANTHONY FOXX, Secretary, (W.D. Okla.)
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before LUCERO and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Vimala Agrawal is a long-time employee of the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”) at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. In 2007, she applied for seven different supervisory engineer
positions with the FAA, but was not selected for any of the positions. She
subsequently filed a complaint against the Department of Transportation alleging that
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
the FAA discriminated against her on the basis of race, sex, age, color, religion,
national origin, and retaliation for previous protected activity.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. Because Ms. Agrawal
had not presented any direct evidence of discrimination, the court considered her
claims applying the traditional burden-shifting analysis in McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). The district court assumed for the purposes
of its decision that Ms. Agrawal could establish prima facie cases of discrimination
for each of her claims. The court found, however, that defendant had met its burden
of producing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not selecting Ms. Agrawal
for any of the positions. The court further found that Ms. Agrawal had not submitted
any evidence to create a genuine issue as to whether defendant’s explanation for not
selecting Ms. Agrawal was pretextual.
The district court noted that Ms. Agrawal’s response contained conclusory
assertions regarding pretext with no evidence submitted to support her statements. In
particular, Ms. Agrawal argued that she was more qualified for the positions than the
individuals selected, but she failed to present evidence regarding her qualifications as
compared to the qualifications of those selected, let alone make a showing that any
disparity was overwhelming, see Jaramillo v. Colo. Judicial Dep’t, 427 F.3d 1303,
1309 (10th Cir. 2005) (“To show pretext, the disparity in qualifications must be
overwhelming.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court further noted
that, “‘[i]t is the manager’s perception of the employee’s performance that is
-2-
relevant, not plaintiff’s subjective evaluation of [her] own relative performance.’”
Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 188 (quoting Kelley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 220 F.3d
1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 2000)).
On appeal, Ms. Agrawal argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment because defendant “failed to establish undisputed facts that
support entry of summary judgment.” Aplt. Br. at 20. We have reviewed the record,
the briefs, and the relevant legal authority under a de novo standard of review, see
Maestas v. Day & Zimmerman, LLC, 664 F.3d 822, 826 (10th Cir. 2012), and we see
no reversible error in the district court’s decision. Accordingly, for substantially the
same reasons articulated by the district court in its order dated September 25, 2012,
we affirm.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-3-