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.
[Rule 56] provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly sup-
ported motion for summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48.
As we shall explain, Hux’s arguments fall prey to this important limi-
tation.
First, Hux argues that the City’s reliance on her performance prob-
lems, particularly her poor interpersonal and supervisory skills, is a
cover for gender discrimination because three successful male candi-
dates also had performance issues. Hux points out that one, for exam-
ple, was formally counseled for an incident in which he yelled at a
co-worker and locked a medic unit’s brakes. Another was once cited
for conversing with a fellow employee and listening to a football
game during a rescue operation.
These incidents involving other personnel are not indicative of pre-
text. To begin with, they involve isolated episodes that do not com-
pare to Hux’s own chronic problems with personal interactions,
problems that were so severe that her subordinates took the unusual
measure of writing a joint letter to her superiors. This letter stated,
among other things, that Hux "unreservedly demeans and chastises
the actions of subordinates on a regular and ongoing basis" and that
she was "discourteous and holds no respect for any member of [the]
team."
In addition, each of the three candidates with whom Hux compares
herself was significantly more qualified by almost every other metric
the Department considered. One, for instance, had approximately
three times as much fire service experience, a significantly longer Fire
Lieutenant tenure, and also enjoyed better overall evaluations. To find
pretext in the City’s explanation on the basis of these three candi-
dates’ sporadic performance problems would, in short, require us to
elevate a single consideration — which does not, in any event, cut in
plaintiff’s favor — above all others the Department found relevant.
See Anderson, 406 F.3d at 270 (plaintiff "may not choose the areas
in which she wants to compete . . . for the promotion").
Hux alternatively asks that we ignore the ample evidence of her
difficulties working amicably with others. To the extent that Hux con-
tends that supervisory and communication skills are actually not rele-
9HUX v. CITY OF NEWPORT NEWSJump to an indexed page (12 of 12)