# Virginia M. St. Peter v. Secretary of the Army

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · July 1, 1981 · 659 F.2d 1133

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468402

## Case

- **Full name:** Virginia M. ST. PETER, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF the ARMY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** July 1, 1981
- **Citations:** 659 F.2d 1133; 212 U.S. App. D.C. 249; 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 31,943; 26 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 194; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11798
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nichols
- **Judges:** Tamm, Mikva, Nichols, Claims
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468402

## Opinion text

NICHOLS, Judge,
dissenting:
Though the service records of St. Peter, Staples, and the other candidates were available, the interview panel did not even look at them because it assumed, erroneously, that such records had already been determined to be neutral in the weight they added to or subtracted from one or the other candidacy. This is a frivolous method of making a selection for promotion, a type of decision making supposedly long since banished from the executive branch. I fail to see the mere explanation that defendant followed such method as satisfying the Bur-dine test. The evidence does not allow the trier of fact to conclude that the decision was not motivated by discriminatory animus. Even if not required to persuade, defendant must articulate a reason for its choice that would be acceptable if believed. A frivolous selection method furnishes evidence only in a negative sense, that is, that the real decision was made at a time, by persons, and by methods, that defendant does not see fit to divulge. The prima facie case is, therefore, unrebutted. The issues to my mind would be no different if defendant explained it selected Staples because he was a Leo or a Taurus. The latter explanation might, indeed, be sufficient for some private employers, but not for the U.S. Government with all its solemn standards and procedures. The magistrate in effect found the ostensible selection method to be frivolous, but failed to draw the unavoidable conclusion from her own finding.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468402. Public record. Not legal advice.