00-3827 Johnson v. Nordstrom Inc., et al.

Listen to this article

“Johnson takes issue with the district court’s reliance on her alleged interview answer stating that sales would be the primary aspect of the beauty director’s job. Johnson claims that ‘even if she did [give that answer], that was not necessarily a wrong answer, because increased sales, indirectly, through the training of Cosmetics Associates, is the ultimate goal of any retailer …’ This, however, does not undermine the employer’s honest belief that sales was not the main aspect of the job, and that Johnson indicated in her interview that she was unaware of this fact. Even viewing these facts in the light most favorable to Johnson, whether the interview answer was right or wrong is for Nordstrom to decide, and does not demonstrate that this reason for failing to promote Johnson was pretextual.”

“Johnson also argues that her ‘stealing’ of customers [from co-workers] and violation of work rules were disputed. Whether she stole customers or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is the undisputed fact that her co-workers thought she did. Johnson has failed to demonstrate that this was a false justification for Nordstrom’s refusal to promote her. Likewise, the disputed allegation that Johnson violated several workplace policies was not shown to be pretextual-simply disputed. It is well established that an employer is free to develop its own criteria in determining whom to promote, and Johnson has failed to demonstrate that these were not Nordstrom’s true rationales.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Cudahy, J.