Plaintiff Barbara Hack sued defendant City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of gender discrimination under Title VII when the defendant failed to promote her to a Topeka Fire Department Division Chief position. Before the court is Defendant City of Topeka’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Barbara Hack was employed by the Topeka Fire Department for 24 years, from January 1999 to March 31, 2023. She promoted through the firefighter ranks, passing the Lieutenant exam in 2007 and the Captain exam in 2019, with actual promotions occurring in 2012 and 2019 respectively. In January 2022, then-Fire Chief Craig Duke created a special position for Hack that allowed her to use her EMS and paramedic certifications, and she transferred to the specialty side as a Training Officer without having to apply or interview.
In February 2022, Randall Phillips was promoted to Fire Chief, and Antony Standifer was promoted to Deputy Fire Chief. Hack had previously worked in the same station with Standifer on different shifts, during which time Standifer made a derogatory comment about women that offended her, causing her to avoid him thereafter.
When Phillips became Fire Chief, the TFD had an unprecedented number of vacancies in management, including all four Division Chiefs and several Shift Commanders and Battalion Chiefs. In March 2022, the TFD posted openings for all four Division Chief positions using a single, streamlined application process that deviated from standard practice. The rank qualification was lowered from the typical Battalion Chief requirement to Captain due to the numerous command vacancies.
Hack applied for the Fire Marshal and Chief of Administration positions. Other applicants included Bruce Andruss, Jason Broadbent, Brent Dorsey, Chuck Gatewood, Ronald Rutherford, Paul Stafford, and Alan Stahl. Stahl was allowed to apply despite not having Captain rank, based on HR’s determination that his Level III specialty experience was equivalent to Captain rank.
The interview process was conducted by a panel consisting of Clint Patty, Dave Anderson, Standifer, and John Paul Jones. Each applicant was scored on ten identical questions using a scale of one to five. The final scores were: Stahl (171), Gatewood (168), Broadbent (164), Andruss (161), Stafford (134), Hack (131), and Dorsey (117).
Standifer’s scores for Hack and Dorsey were significantly lower than those given by other panelists. Standifer scored Hack based partly on rumors and gossip that she was inclined to do the “bare minimum,” though they had never worked together directly. He rated her as “Poor” in “Related Knowledge for Position” and “Skills and Experience for Position.”
Phillips made the final promotion decision, selecting the top four scoring candidates: Broadbent for Division Chief of Operations, Gatewood for Division Chief of Administration, Stahl for Fire Marshal, and Andruss for Division Chief of EMS/Training. All selected candidates were white men.
The HR Department had limited involvement in the process, contrary to typical practice. HR Director Jacque Russell was not consulted on interview questions, did not review interview packets before offers were made, and was not asked to provide applicants’ disciplinary histories. On April 15, 2022, the same day Phillips extended offers, Russell sent him Stahl’s 2020 disciplinary record, noting concerns about promoting someone with such conduct to a leadership position.
Evidentiary Disputes
The court addressed several evidentiary objections. Hack’s hearsay objection to Stahl’s resume was overruled because the facts were offered to show what was known to the hiring panel, not for their truth. The court also overruled Hack’s objection that interview notes were inadmissible hearsay, finding they could be put into admissible form through deposition testimony from panelists. However, the court sustained Hack’s objection to Russell’s post hoc expert opinion about interview results she reviewed for the first time during her deposition, limiting her testimony to lay opinion based on personal knowledge.
Legal Analysis
The case proceeded under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework since there was no direct evidence of discrimination. The defendant did not dispute that Hack established a prima facie case, so the burden shifted to the City to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. The City met this burden by presenting evidence that it promoted the highest scoring candidates following an objective interview process. The burden then shifted back to Hack to demonstrate that this explanation was pretext for gender-based discrimination.
Standifer’s Animus:
Hack argued that Deputy Fire Chief Standifer held discriminatory animus that impacted the hiring decision and that this animus should be imputed to Phillips under a “cat’s paw” theory. The court found that Standifer’s isolated comments about women were insufficient “stray comments” without a nexus to the employment decision. However, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Hack, the court determined a reasonable jury could conclude Standifer’s scores were motivated by discriminatory animus based on several factors.
First, Standifer’s explanation for Hack’s low scores contradicted other panelists’ observations. While Standifer claimed Hack appeared unenergetic and uninterested, other panelists described her as enthusiastic and personable. Second, Standifer’s scoring was inconsistent – he gave Andruss, who had a reputation for being unenergetic, more than twice Hack’s score, and scored Stahl highly despite knowledge of disciplinary issues. Third, Standifer admitted his low opinion of Hack was based on rumors and gossip, while he was careful not to consider similar gossip about Stahl.
Regarding proximate causation, the court found a reasonable jury could conclude Standifer’s animus proximately caused the promotion decision. As the only internal panel member, Standifer shared his knowledge about candidates with other panelists. His scores contributed to overall totals, and Russell testified they would be considered outliers requiring investigation. Phillips also consulted with Standifer before making final decisions.
Procedural Irregularities:
The court analyzed five alleged procedural irregularities: the streamlined hiring process, deviation from Captain requirements for Stahl, inconsistent consideration of supervisory experience, failure to review disciplinary history, and circumventing HR.
Streamlined Interview Process: The court found this irregularity affected all applicants equally, not just Hack, as everyone competed against seven candidates instead of two or three under normal procedures.
Excepting Stahl from Captain Requirement: The court determined this did not demonstrate pretext because HR had approved Stahl’s application based on equivalent Level III specialty experience, and the deviation affected all Captain-ranked candidates equally.
Past Supervision Experience: The court found no genuine issue of material fact since job postings did not require specific supervisory experience, and Phillips considered Stahl’s National Guard experience sufficient.
Disciplinary History: The court concluded Phillips’s failure to examine disciplinary records did not directly disadvantage Hack more than other candidates and therefore did not evidence pretext.
Circumventing HR: The court found this was the type of procedural irregularity that calls into question whether the City’s stated reason was pretextual. HR was excluded from reviewing interview questions, packets, personnel files, and final selections contrary to normal practice. If standard procedures had been followed, Hack might have competed against fewer candidates, Stahl’s disciplinary issues might have disqualified him, and Standifer’s outlier scores might have been investigated.
Disparity in Qualifications:
The court applied the “overwhelming disparity” standard and found Hack failed to establish she was overwhelmingly more qualified than Stahl. Both had equivalent experience levels, Stahl had supervisory experience through the National Guard, and his disciplinary history was limited to essentially one incident within the relevant timeframe.
Totality of Evidence:
While individual pieces of pretext evidence had limitations, the court found that when viewed in totality, Hack demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact about whether the City’s stated reason was pretext for discrimination. The minimal role of HR, combined with evidence of Standifer’s potential animus and the bypassing of standard procedures that protect against unfair decision-making, created sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment.
The court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a reasonable jury could determine the City’s stated reason for not promoting Hack was pretext for gender discrimination.
Schrag on Law 