964 F.3d 793
8th Cir.2020Background
- Amee Pribyl, a Wright County deputy since 1996 with a bachelor’s and master’s degree and ~20 years’ law enforcement experience, applied in 2014 for a Court Services sergeant position; Drew Scherber (less experience, associate’s degree) was promoted.
- The selection had three stages: NeoGov screening (minimum objective qualifications), a three-member panel interview, and final selection by Sheriff Hagerty. Both Pribyl and Scherber met NeoGov minimums; Pribyl had the highest NeoGov score.
- Panelists (HR rep Judy Brown, Chief Deputy Hoffman, Capt. Anselment) rated Pribyl’s interview poorly—noting she recited the mission statement, gave a restroom/duty-belt answer seen as odd/unresponsive, and provided brief answers; none placed her in their individual top-five.
- The panel recommended five finalists (excluding Pribyl); Hagerty narrowed to three, consulted command staff, and selected Scherber, citing supervisory strengths. Hagerty later testified (after suit) that women often do not return after maternity leave.
- Pribyl sued under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act for sex discrimination (failure to promote). The district court granted summary judgment for the County; Pribyl appealed challenging pretext and cat’s-paw liability; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County’s stated reason (poor interview) was pretext for sex discrimination | Pribyl: she was objectively more qualified; County ignored objective credentials and relied on subjective interview; panel notes show inconsistent treatment by Hoffman | County: NeoGov met objective screening; interview legitimately considered; panel uniformly found her interview weak; subjective judgments lawful | Affirmed: Plaintiff failed to show pretext. Objective qualifications did not foreclose consideration of interview performance; no evidence linking panel impressions to gender bias |
| Whether employer is liable under cat’s-paw theory (biased subordinate caused adverse action) | Pribyl: panelists’ alleged bias tainted recommendation; Hagerty relied on panel and did not independently investigate | County: No evidence panel harbored gender animus; Hagerty was ultimate decisionmaker—his animus (if any) would be direct evidence, not cat’s-paw; plaintiff waived some arguments | Affirmed: No genuine issue that panel acted from gender animus; cat’s-paw claim fails |
| Whether there is direct evidence of discriminatory animus | Pribyl: points to Hagerty’s deposition statements about women and maternity leave | County: Plaintiff raised this late; argument waived on appeal; no admissible direct-evidence showing causation | Affirmed: direct-evidence argument waived (untimely presented); summary judgment stands |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (en banc) (summary-judgment review and evidentiary standards for employment-discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard; materiality of facts)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff must show discriminatory intent, not merely discredit employer’s explanation)
- Wingate v. Gage Cty. Sch. Dist., 528 F.3d 1074 (use of subjective criteria alongside objective qualifications does not permit inference of discrimination)
- Tyler v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trs., 628 F.3d 980 (employer may rely on interview performance in selecting best candidate)
- Qamhiyah v. Iowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech., 566 F.3d 733 (defines cat’s-paw theory)
- Bennett v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 721 F.3d 546 (vicarious liability under cat’s-paw requires biased subordinate to cause adverse action)
- Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630 (issues not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived)