Cruz v. Mattis, 861 F.3d 22

Samuel Cruz, a long-time substitute teacher at Fort Buchanan DDESS schools, applied via the DoD online system (EAS) for two 2010 fifth‑grade vacancies but was not included on either ASC referral list.
Each referral list was compiled by the Area Service Center (ASC) human resources using EAS point scores; principals could hire only from those referral lists.
The two hired candidates were women with eight–nine years of full‑time nonsubstitute (creditable) teaching experience; Cruz’s experience was substitute teaching, treated by DoDEA as non‑creditable.
Cruz filed an administrative discrimination complaint; an EEOC Administrative Judge found no discrimination, and DoDEA adopted that decision. Cruz then sued under Title VII in federal district court.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, finding either no prima facie case or, alternatively, a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (lack of creditable experience) and no evidence of pretext. This appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cruz established a prima facie Title VII disparate‑treatment claim	Cruz argued he is in a protected class (male), applied and was not hired for positions for which he was qualified	ASC argued Cruz lacked creditable (nonsubstitute) experience and referral lists were merit‑based point‑in‑time compilations	Court assumed arguendo prima facie but resolved case on later step; no reversible error on prima facie point
Whether the employer articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not referring/hiring Cruz	Cruz contended non‑crediting of substitute experience was a post‑hoc pretext	Secretary produced testimony and historic practice showing substitute experience is not creditable under EAS scoring	Held employer proffered a legitimate reason (lack of creditable experience)
Whether that reason was pretextual	Cruz relied on his 2009 inclusion on a referral list and the school’s predominantly female staff to suggest discrimination	Secretary showed 2009 list is not probative of 2010 (EAS is point‑in‑time) and principal lacked authority to hire outside referrals	Court held Cruz produced no evidentiary quality material showing pretext; summary judgment affirmed

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
Iverson v. City of Bos., 452 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2006) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Ahern v. Shinseki, 629 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2010) (elements of prima facie case and burden shifting under McDonnell Douglas)
Nieves‑Romero v. United States, 715 F.3d 375 (1st Cir. 2013) (summary judgment requires evidentiary quality showing; conclusory allegations insufficient)