Reference no: EM131006775

A woman with twenty-eight years of experience was "an exemplary employee who had been na- tionally recognized for her planning work." She applied for the promotional position of Plan Formulation Specialist. The selection panel chose a much younger and less experienced candidate. The promotion took place when the employer had expressed concern about its aging workforce. The employer had created an "Emerging Leaders Program" to identify and develop individuals with "leadership potential." The candidate cho- sen was in this program. Candidates were first scored and ranked according to their experience and qualifications. The woman was ranked as tied for second place (out of six candidates) even though she would have been alone in second place twenty points above the next highest can- didate if the employer, had simply summed the scores of the panelists. Instead, the ranking was done by "consensus" of the panelists. Interviews were then conducted. The selection panel deter- mined that interview performance would be weighed equally with the pre-interview assess- ment of qualifications. Each interviewee was asked the same questions, and each interview lasted from fifteen to thirty minutes. The notes and scores from the interviews were not retained. However, panelists testified that the women did not perform well on the interview, that she had been "curt and blunt" during the interview, and that she appeared not to be making an effort to answer the questions. The woman said that she had given short answers because she didn't think the questions were germane to the position. When all was said and done, the woman was ranked fourth among the candidates and did not get the promotion. She sued for age dis- crimination. What should the court decide? Why? (Hollaway v. Secretary of Army, 203 Fed. Appx. 563 (5th Cir. 2006))