Conroy v. Vilsack, 707 F.3d 1163

Conroy, a female Forest Service employee in Region 4 (Intermountain Region), sues under Title VII after not being selected for the INFRA Program Manager job in 2001.
Region 4 advertised the INFRA Program Manager position in interchangeable administrative and professional series; Conroy applied administrative but lacked a college degree.
A revised fall 2001 vacancy description narrowed to knowledge of certain software; a peer panel recommended Daniel Hager over Conroy, and the selecting official hired Hager.
Conroy filed grievances alleging sex discrimination (2001) and later retaliation; in 2003 the position was readvertised in 2004 after a policy change restricting interchangeable listings, and Andrea Gehrke was ultimately selected.
The district court granted summary judgment, excluding Conroy’s two expert witnesses (Dr. Dodd and Mr. Katz), and dismissed the claims; the court treated Conroy’s suit as four Title VII claims, with three discrimination claims and one retaliation claim, and found no triable issues.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviews admissibility of experts de novo and abuse-of-discretion gatekeeping, applies McDonnell Douglas to discrimination and retaliation claims, and affirms the district court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony	Conroy argues district court abused gatekeeping and allowed exclusion of experts.	Forest Service contends experts lacked qualification or reliability under Rule 702.	No abuse; district court properly excluded the experts.
Primary discrimination: 2001 Hager selection	Conroy shows pretext; Hager’s selection was discriminatory.	Forest Service’s reasons (leadership, program management) were legitimate and nondiscriminatory.	No pretext; dismissal affirmed.
Discrimination: 2001 readvertising	Relisting with modified qualifications was a separate act of sex discrimination.	Relisting was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory practice to broaden the pool.	No pretext; readvertising upheld.
Retaliation: 2004 readvertising	Readvertising in professional series was retaliatory for the 2002 discrimination complaint.	Timing and causation do not show retaliation; action was due to policy and qualifications.	No prima facie case; summary judgment affirmed.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (gatekeeping for expert testimony)
Ralston v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) (two-part admissibility test; reliability and relevance)
United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion in gatekeeping)
103 Investors I, L.P. v. Square D Co., 470 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 2006) (reliability and relevance in expert testimony)
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2000) (admissibility and reliability considerations for expert testimony)
Crowe v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 649 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2011) (premier discussion of direct vs. circumstantial evidence in discrimination)