Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—W.D. Tenn.: 50-year-old Baptist Health applicant failed to show non-selection for job was age-related, (Apr 14, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The applicant, who was passed over for the job in favor of a candidate under the age of 40, admitted her resume contained errors and misleading entries.

Despite being asked when she graduated from high school during her second interview for an Academic Success Coach position with Baptist Health Sciences University (BHSU), a 50-year-old applicant failed to show her non-selection for the position was based on age discrimination, a federal court in Tennessee ruled, granting summary judgment against her ADEA claim. Nor could she show BHSU's failure to later consider her for another position was in retaliation for having filed a charge of discrimination, said the court, noting that she had been marked as ineligible for rehire 10 years earlier and she was unable to show that was pretextual (Thomas v. Baptist Health Sciences University, No. 2:23-cv-02595-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2025)).

BHSU, part of a family of related organizations of which Baptist Memorial Health Care (Baptist) is the functional parent, mostly acts independently from Baptist. It makes its own hiring, firing, and disciplinary decisions through its own local HR professionals, but Baptist provides it with support services to assist with HR, recruiting, and application technology.

Selected for interview. In November 2021, the applicant, who was 49 years old at the time, applied for an open Academic Success Coach (ASC) position in a Student Success Center that provides students with access to resources like tutoring, mentoring, and academic success planning to help them achieve their academic and career goals. The ASC supervisor selected her for an interview and subsequently invited her back for a second interview for which she was required to prepare a presentation.

Confusion. During the second interview, one of the panelists questioned the applicant about her resume, which the applicant admitted "contained errors and misleading entries." Not only did the applicant feel the panelist was angry at her, she felt she was being attacked regarding the accuracy of her education and experience. At one point, the panelist asked her when she graduated from high school.

The applicant scored the lowest of all six candidates in that round. She received negative remarks for pacing and dancing around during her presentation, for her demeanor, and for not sitting down for the interview after her presentation. The panel also found her resume facially contradictory. BHSU ultimately hired an induvial who was under 40 years old and who had scored significantly higher than all other candidates.

Ineligible for rehire. Although the applicant continued to apply for other positions at different Baptist entities, she was never granted an interview. She filed an EEOC charge and while investigating the charge, BHSU learned that the applicant had previously worked for a Baptist entity and was ineligible for rehire, purportedly because she had not called in or shown up for her last two shifts.

Age discrimination. The applicant subsequently sued for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA and because BHSU asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her non-selection—she performed poorly in her second interview and she was not the most qualified candidate—the court turned to evidence of pretext. Although she argued that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate BHSU's decision, the only evidence to which she pointed was the panelist asking when she graduated from high school.

But not only was this question too isolated and too ambiguous to support an inference of age discrimination, the undisputed facts, said the court, showed the panelist's opinion was not considered in the hiring decision. Moreover, the applicant admitted her resume contained misleading errors, including that she had two separate associate degrees when she had only earned one, that she was an academic advisor and managed a team of employees when she was only a volunteer advisor and did not manage or supervise anyone, and that she was an adjunct instructor for a technology program when she had only actually taught once or twice.

Questionable resume. Further, the applicant testified that the panelist characterized her resume as "very questionable" and went through her education and work experience "step-by-step" before asking "Now, what year did you say you graduated?" She also stated that she believed the panelist was angry with her because she felt like she lied on her resume, not because of her age.

Nor was there any evidence the panelist participated in the hiring decision. The ASC supervisor, who was also on the interview panel, was the ultimate decisonmaker and she stated that she considered only feedback from herself and two other panelists who had attended all six interviews. To the extent she may have considered the panelist's comments during the interview, the applicant indicated that the supervisor rolled her eyes at the panelist after she asked the applicant her questions. Based on all this, the court found no reasonable juror could conclude that BHSU decided not to hire the applicant because of her age.

Retaliation. The applicant also alleged that BHSU retaliated against her in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act when, after she filed an EEOC charge in August 2022, it refused to consider her for a director position in December. Because BHSU pointed to her ineligibility for rehire to October 2013, which it discovered while investigating the EEOC charge, the court again turned to evidence of pretext.

The applicant argued that ineligibility for rehire did not actually motivate BHSU's decision not to consider her application because it never informed her of her ineligibility for rehire when it interviewed her for the ASC position or when she applied for other Baptist positions in 2022. Noting that her allegations were similar to arguing that BHSU offered "shifting justifications" at different points in time, the court explained that "an employer does not offer shifting justifications when it provides 'additional non-discriminatory reasons that do not conflict' with each other."

Moreover, said the court, the undisputed facts showed that Baptist marked her as ineligible for rehire for positions for which applied in March and May 2022, which was before she filed her discrimination charge in August 2022. Though she argued that no one ever notified her about that, the court pointed out that neither Baptist nor BHSU ever gave her a substantive reason for not hiring her for any position for which she applied and there was no evidence indicating that they were required to do so.

As to why the applicant was flagged as ineligible for rehire for some positions and not others, like the ASC role, the court noted evidence indicating that different recruiters perform internal reviews at different points in time depending on the number of applicants and their own preferences, and the internal review process to determine eligibility for rehire typically does not occur until after BHSU makes the decision to hire someone. Accordingly, the court found summary judgment appropriate as to this claim as well.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-02595-SHL-tmp.

Judge: Lipman, S.

Attorneys: Dan M. Norwood (Norwood Associates) for Charletta Thomas. Paul E. Prather (Littler Mendelson) for Baptist Health Sciences University.

Companies: Baptist Health Sciences University

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation StateLawClaims TennesseeNews