This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Third, Hux argues that the City’s reliance on her leave time usage
is pretextual because a successful candidate in the December 2002
process, John Grimsley, had also taken a similarly large amount of
leave due to a major accident. This argument suffers from the same
infirmity as those addressed above, because Grimsley was more quali-
fied than Hux in almost every respect. As of December 2002, Hux
had seven years of fire service experience, approximately three as a
Fire Lieutenant. Grimsley, by contrast, had twenty-six years of fire-
fighting experience, thirteen as a Fire Lieutenant. Grimsley also had
far superior employment evaluations, and Fire Chief Jones deter-
mined that he gave the best interview performance of any candidate.
Grimsley’s leave time, like the other objections Hux raises, fails to
undermine the City’s contention that Hux was less qualified overall
for a Fire Captain position.
Finally, Hux contests the City’s citation of her emotional perfor-
mance in her December 2002 interview, which the City suggests cal-
led into question Hux’s level-headedness in emergency situations.
Hux explains that her emotions may have gotten out of check in her
December 2002 interview because she had heard rumors that she
might be appointed to an office captaincy rather than a field position.
She further notes that she had worked in tense situations before, occa-
sionally as an Acting Captain. Both of these assertions do not, how-
ever, take away from the fact that as Hux acknowledges, she became
visibly upset during her interview, and "it is the perception of the
decision maker which is relevant." DeJarnette, 133 F.3d at 299 (inter-
nal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Interviews are an impor-
tant tool that employers use to make all sorts of hiring decisions, and
we may not lightly overturn the reasonable conclusions an employer
reaches after actually meeting with a candidate face-to-face.2
2Hux raises various other allegations of pretext, which we have
reviewed and find to be without merit. She also contends that she can
prove discrimination under the mixed-motive approach. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2(m); Diamond, 416 F.3d at 317. Hux did not properly raise this
theory below and the district court expressly refused to consider it. But
even if Hux had diligently pursued this argument, we conclude for the
reasons given above that it would not assist her here.
Finally, Hux alternatively contends that the Department denied her a
promotion in later rounds of the process in retaliation for her filings with
11HUX v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWSJump to an indexed page (12 of 12)