01-1189 Millbrook v. IBP, Inc.

Listen to this article

“This makes sense because a court’s ‘role is to prevent unlawful hiring practices, not to act as a ‘super personnel department’ that second-guesses employers’ business judgments.’ Simms, 165 F.3d at 1330… If we were to allow a jury to evaluate competing credentials to determine whether the employer’s assertion that it selected the best candidate was pretextual, the jury would in most cases be replacing the employer’s personnel department. Yet neither the judge nor the jury is ‘as well suited by training and experience to evaluate qualifications for high level promotion in other disciplines as are those persons who have trained and worked for years in that field of endeavor for which the applications under consideration are being evaluated.’ Odom, 3 F.3d at 847.

“[N]one of the evidence Millbrook cites as evidence of pretext supports a reasonable inference that IBP lied when it explained its rationale for selecting Harris – his superior qualifications. While Millbrook believes the jury should be allowed to review the candidates’ relative qualifications to decide whether or not IBP lied, without any evidence calling into question IBP’s veracity, what this case really comes down to is the jury deciding which applicant is more qualified. But believing or not believing the decisionmaker is simply saying that the employer made the wrong choice – which is not illegal. Because there is no evidence of pretext, Millbrook has failed to create an inference that IBP intentionally discriminated against him by hiring Harris.”

Reversed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Mihm, J., Manion, J.