Pаtricia Springer (“Plaintiff’) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. (“Convergys”) in her employment discrimination claim alleging a racially discriminatory failure to promote under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, an African American woman, worked for Convergys and its predecessors from November 1983 until her termination seventeen years later in August 2001. During that time, Plaintiff worked in the Employee Care Organization within Convergys, holding various positions, including Account Representative, Team Manager, Instructor, Human Resources Staff Recruiter, and Operations Manager. *1346 As an Operations Manager, the position she held at the time of her termination, Plaintiff supervised team managers and several teams, totaling approximately fifty people.
Plaintiff consistently received satisfactory annual job evaluations. In fact, one of Plaintiffs supervisors testified that he was very satisfied with her performance and thought she had the potential to progress in the company and perform well in upper management positions. However, Plaintiff also demonstrated several performance deficiencies. In March 1999, Convergys placed Plaintiff on a developmental plan for the purpose of improving upon some of her professional weaknesses. A few of Plaintiffs subordinates had complained about the manner in which Plaintiff addressed them. Plaintiff later agreed to take some courses on proper management skills, but there is a dispute as to whether such courses were taken directly in response to the subordinates’ complaints or merely to advance Plaintiffs career prospects.
Other employees of Convergys noted that Plaintiff had difficulty accepting feedback and demonstrated weak communication skills. A Director at Convergys, Patrice London, testified that based on her observations and interactions with the Plaintiff, she regularly exhibited grammatical and spelling mistakes in her work-related emails. In addition, the Plaintiff demonstrated attendance and punctuality problems. Plaintiff admitted being late or missing several scheduled meetings; however, it appears from the record that several other employees had been late or missed scheduled meetings without being disciplined.
In 2001, Convergys had an opening for the position of Senior Operations Manager. Plaintiff had applied for a similar opening in November 2000, but she did not receive the promotion. In 2001, there were four Operations Managers, including Plaintiff, eligible for the Senior Operations Manager promotion. The other three eligible Operations Managers included a Cauсasian woman named Susan Johnson, an African American woman, and an African American man.
In March 2001, Convergys announced that Susan Johnson, Plaintiffs Caucasian co-worker, had received the promotion to Senior Operations Manager. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Human Resources Department stating that she was more qualified for the position than Susan Johnson and had been denied the promotion because of her race. Plaintiff further claimed not to have known of the position’s availability prior to Susan Johnson receiving the promotion.
Although it was Convergys’ corporate policy that all job positions be posted for a minimum of three days to allow all qualified candidates to apply and be considered for the positions, there is a dispute as to whether this particular position was ever announced or posted internally. Patrice London, the supervisor in charge of selecting the candidate for the promotion, and Susan Johnson cоntend that the opening for the position was announced at a team meeting. However, Plaintiff and her two African American colleagues insist that no announcement was ever made.
A human resources representative for Convergys initiated an investigation into Plaintiffs claims and concluded that racial discrimination was not a fаctor in the promotion of Susan Johnson. Convergys eventually terminated Plaintiff in August 2001, stating that they were forced by business necessity to eliminate an Operations Manager position. In response, Plaintiff filed a complaint in district court against Convergys alleging, inter alia, that Convergys discriminated against her based upon her race when it promoted *1347 Susan Johnsоn to Senior Operations Manager. Plaintiff claimed that she was more qualified than Susan Johnson and that the position was never posted, in violation of company policy. Convergys moved for summary judgment on all seven counts asserted in Plaintiffs complaint. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Convergys on Count I alleging an unlawful failure tо promote and Count II alleging disparate pay under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Counts Y and VII alleging unlawful retaliation under state law and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, respectively. A trial was held and a jury concluded that Plaintiffs remaining counts claiming retaliatory discharge under federal and state law were baseless. Therеafter, the district court entered a final judgment in favor of Convergys on all seven counts in the complaint. Plaintiffs appeal is limited to Count I alleging an unlawful failure to promote under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
II. DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de
novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
See Skrtich v. Thornton,
In cases where direct evidence of employment discrimination is lacking, we analyze the claim under the
McDonnell Douglas
framework, which requires thе plaintiff to create an inference of discrimination through her
prima facie
case.
1
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
For the purposes of its Motion for Summary Judgment only, Convergys conceded that Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination based upon a failure to promote. 2 Thus, the burden shifted to Convergys to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for promoting Susan Johnson rather than Plaintiff for the position of Senior Operations Manager. Convergys’ articulated reason for promoting Susan Johnson *1348 was that she was the more qualified candidate. To support this assertion, Con-vergys provided substantial evidence that Susan Johnson’s annual ratings were consistently higher than Plaintiffs. Convеr-gys also pointed to Susan Johnson’s significant experience relevant to the new position, including effective management of subordinates and prior experience with the specific client with whom the promoted person would be working.
It is undisputed that Susan Johnson was highly regarded by her co-workers. In fact, one of the African American Operations Managers eligible for the promotion commented that he believed Susan Johnson was more qualified than any other Operations Manager. Further, a former supervisor of Susan Johnson testified that she was a stellar performer that should have been promoted long before she was. 3
Plaintiff argues that our holding in
Joshi v. Florida State Univ. Health Ctr.,
To prove that Convergys did not consider her qualifications, Plaintiff points to Patrice London’s testimony that she did not consider Plaintiff a candidate for the Senior Operations Manager position. However, that statement, when read in the context of her testimony, indicates only that Patrice London’s familiarity with Plaintiffs qualifications led her to the conclusion that Plaintiff was not a good candidate for the position. Patrice London testified that she had first-hand knowledge of Plaintiffs qualifications at the time Susan Johnson received the promotion, and it was that direct knowledge of Plaintiffs qualifications and performance defiсiencies that informed her opinion that Plaintiff should not be considered a candidate for the promotion.
This case is distinguishable from the facts in Joshi. In Joshi, the defendant had no prior knowledge of Joshi’s qualifications because Joshi was not an employee of the defendant. Joshi was an outside applicant. However, in this case, Plaintiff worked for Convergys and its predecessors for over fifteen years at the time the promotion was granted to Susan Johnson. Patrice London was Plaintiffs supervisor prior to the promotion decision and consequently was in a position to have direct knowledge of Plaintiffs qualifications or lack thereof. Thus, we do not find Joshi particularly applicable to the case at hand.
We agree with the district court that Convergys mеt its burden of articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for promoting Susan Johnson over Plaintiff. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the burden then shifts back to Plaintiff to demonstrate that Convergys’ articulated reason is pretext. We find that Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden of proving pretext.
Plaintiff may demonstrate that Convergys’ reasons were pretextual by rеvealing “such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies or contradictions in [Convergys’] proffered legitimate reasons for its actions that a reasonable factfinder could find them unworthy of credence.”
Cooper v. Southern Co.,
390 F.3d
*1349
695, 725 (11th Cir.2004),
cert. denied,
In the context of a promotion, “a plaintiff cannot prove pretext by simply arguing or even by showing that he was better qualified than the [person] who received the position he coveted. A plaintiff must show not merely that the defendant’s employment decisions were mistaken but that they were in fact motivated by race.”
Id.
(citing
Alexander v. Fulton County,
Plaintiff attempts to prove pretext by claiming that she was in fact the more qualified сandidate for the Senior Operations Manager position. Plaintiff points primarily to her educational background to support this assertion. The job requisition form for the Senior Operations Manager position listed a four-year college degree as a requirement; however, Patrice London testified that the job descriрtion permitted six to eight years of experience as the equivalent of the educational requirements. While Plaintiff was the only Operations Manager that possessed a four-year degree, Susan Johnson possessed the requisite experience to substitute for a lack of a college degree.
Patrice London also testified that experience was more important to her placement decisions than education. “Personal qualities ... factor heavily into employment decisions concerning supervisory or professional positions. Traits such as common sense, good judgment, originality, ambition, loyalty, and tact often must be assessed primarily in a subjective fashion, yet they are essential to an individual’s success in a supervisory or professional position.”
Denney v. City of Albany,
Plaintiff has provided no evidence that Convergys’ reliance on the superior qualifications of Susan Johnson as the .reason for her promotion is a mask for racial discrimination. “Absent evidence that subjective hiring criteria were used as а mask for discrimination, the fact that an employer based a hiring or promotion decision on purely subjective criteria will rarely, if ever, prove pretext ....”
Denney,
Plaintiff also argues that pretext can be inferred from Patrice London’s pre-selection of Susan Johnson without the internal posting of the position required by Convergys’ corporate policy. Yet, even where preselection violates corporate personnel policies, it does not necessarily indicate racial discrimination.
See Kennedy v. Landon,
“We do not sit in judgment of the wisdom of an employer’s selection.”
Cooper,
We conclude that the promotion of Susan Johnson over Plaintiff, based on their supervisor’s view of their relative qualifications, was a reasonable business decision. “[A] plaintiff employee may not establish that an employer’s proffered reason is pre-textual merely by questioning the wisdom of the employer’s reason as long as the reason is one that might motivate a reasonable employer.”
Pennington v. City of Huntsville,
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
Notes
. Both Title VII and § 1981 have the same requirements of proof and present the same analytical framework.
Standard
v.
A.B.E.L. Services,
. In order to establish a prima facie case on the basis of а failure to promote, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (I) she belonged to a protected class; (ii) she was qualified for and applied for a position; (iii) despite qualifications, she was rejected; and (iv) the position was filled with an individual outside the protected class.
McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
. We note that after the promotion at issue here, Susan Johnson was promoted yet again to the position of Director at Convergys.