Russell v. Mich. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-14135 |
| Parties | CATHERINE RUSSELL, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, RENEE ADJORAN, RYAN CLEMONS, CANDACE BAKER, and SUSAN COOK, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable David M. Lawson
Plaintiff Catherine Russell, an African-American female, filed this action alleging that she was denied a promotion by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) because of unlawful discrimination based on her race, sex, and age. DHHS and its employee defendants contend that she was not selected from among the five finalists because of her low interview score. They say in their motion for summary judgment that the evidence presented so far shows that a reasonable jury could not find that the defendants' legitimate non-discriminatory reason for not promoting the plaintiff was pretextual. The Court agrees. The motion will be granted and the case dismissed.
Russell is a current employee of DHHS. She began working there in 1990, serving as a youth specialist at the Maxey Boys Training School. As a result of budget-related downsizing, Russell transferred to the Washtenaw County DHHS in 2008. She initially served as an Assistance Payments Worker, level 10 (APW 10). APWs determine applicants' eligibility for financial assistance programs and maintain ongoing cases.
In 2011, Russell applied and interviewed for the position of Lead APW, level 11 (Lead APW 11). Of the four classifications of APWs, level 11 is the highest. Employees functioning as "lead" workers at this level are responsible for overseeing the work assignments of other APWs, and training new employees while performing regular APW assignments considered to be of significantly greater complexity than those assigned to APW 10s. Russell was interviewed by a three-person panel of APW supervisors and family independent managers, who asked her several situational questions. She was promoted to the position for a limited term on October 1, 2011 and received positive performance reviews throughout her tenure as Lead APW 11.
On September 26, 2013, Russell received notice that effective October 14, 2013, her appointment as Lead Worker would expire and the limited-term position would be abolished. She was informed that she would be assigned permanently to her previous APW 10 position. Her reassignment corresponded to a pay decrease of $1.35 per hour. Russell testified that she nevertheless continued to perform nearly all the duties of a Lead APW 11. The exception was employee training. She was not compensated for the work she performed out of class.
In early 2015, Russell began inquiring about the possibility of returning to her position as Lead APW 11. After apparently learning of a vacancy in November of that year, Russell expressed interest in interviewing for the position. Defendant Renee Adorjan, the county director responsible for filling vacancies, informed Russell that in order to be considered for the position, she must apply through their internal platform ("NeoGov") when the position is posted. Adorjan also advised Russell that although previous experience as a Lead APW 11 was helpful, it did not guarantee acandidate's hiring into the same position. On November 16, 2015, Russell received notice that the application for a Lead APW 11 position had been posted to NeoGov, and that the posting would close on November 23, 2015. Russell immediately submitted her application, which included her transcripts, resume, and a cover letter. The application also asked for descriptions of a candidate's prior work history and experience as an APW.
Russell was invited to interview for the position on December 4, 2015. The human resources representative indicated to Russell that the interview would take place on December 11, 2015, and that Russell would receive a follow-up email with details in the next several days. Russell received an email roughly 24 hours before her interview describing the interview's format and instructing her to bring three supervisory references. The email noted that the interview would include a written exam, and that Russell would have time to review the situation-based questions before the oral component. It explained that candidates would be evaluated based on five competencies: managing work, communication, adaptability, contributing to team success, and building customer loyalty.
Similar to her previous experience interviewing for Lead APW 11 in 2011, Russell's interview consisted of a three-person panel of supervisors and managers. One was defendant Ryan Clemons, a White male, who was Russell's supervisor at the time and previously had given Russell positive performance reviews. He also was familiar with a few of the other candidates interviewed that day. Another, defendant Candace Baker, an African-American female, was a family independence manager who had previously interacted with Russell. She testified that before the interview she had reservations about Russell's interpersonal skills. The third interviewer, defendant Susan Cook, a white female, was the acting programs manager at the DHHS and interacted with a few of the candidates, including Russell, before the interview.
In addition to Russell, the panel interviewed four other candidates for the position:
Russell was 54 years old at the time of the interview.
The interview format matched the description Russell was given in the email from the day before. Russell testified that after she completed the written examination, she was allowed approximately ten minutes to review the questions to be covered during the oral component of her interview. The questions corresponded to the five competency areas on which the candidates would be evaluated:
The question sheet also included five closing questions:
The panel's evaluation of each candidate was documented separately on "behavioral based assessment" sheets, which asked for numerical ratings for each competency on a 1-to-5 scale, and included space for descriptions of the candidates' strengths and weaknesses. The panel also was required to recommend whether the candidate was "appointable" or "not appropriate for the position." At some point after the last interview, the panel transferred the individual scoring information to a consolidated score sheet. That sheet listed the following scoring criteria, assigning numerical values to each competency:
A candidate who did not receive an average score of 3 or more was ineligible for hire.
The consolidated score sheet submitted in evidence places Russell fourth among the five candidates. She received an average score of 3, while the top candidate, McBride, received an average score of 3.6. Orozco and Valdez placed in second and third, respectively, and Burr received the lowest average score of 2.6, thereby disqualifying him from hire. Russell received her highest competency score of 4 in "Managing Work," and received her lowest score of 2 in "Adaptability." McBride scored the same or higher than Russell in every competency area, receiving a score of 3 in Adaptability. The panel commented on Russell's individual assessment sheet that she possessed "good technical skill and ability," but noted "interpersonal interactions" as one of her weaknesses. As for McBride, the panel believed he was "well spoken" and "does his job well," but expressed concern "about his interpersonal skills as we see little interaction with coworkers." The candidates' actual responses to each question were not recorded.
Despite her scores, Russell later described her interview as "excellent." She believed she communicated clearly. However, when asked how she felt during the interview, she stated that she was stressed and unprepared. Russell explained it was difficult for her to obtain three professional references on such short notice, and she learned of the covered competencies with little time to prepare. She also stated that the day before her interview, she received word of a family tragedy that "threw [her] off track." As a result of those circumstances, Russell testified that she did not prepare examples ahead of time of how she met the different criteria.
On January 20, 2016, Russell learned that she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial