Whether the summary judgment in McDaniel's retaliation claim was proper

QUESTIONS PRESENTED LOWER CASE NO: 18-15256 : 1. Whether the Summary judgment in McDaniel’s retaliation claim was proper because District Court Judge Dorsey stated that McDaniel failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant's legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for not hiring ; McDaniel was pretextual and unworthy of belief. 2. Whether management failed to adhere to Title VII retaliation provision and similarly worded statues requiring a plaintiff to prove but for causation (i.e. that an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action but for an improper motive) or ; instead require only prove that the employer had a mix motive (i.e. that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for employment action). In Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, 490 U.S.228,258,268-69 (1989) a plurality of this Court held that the discrimination provision of Title Vil of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C 2000e-2(a), requires a plaintiff to prove only that discrimination was a “motivating factor” for an adverse ; employment action. 3. Whether management directly violated Title V Prohibited Personnel Practices specifically Title 5 2302, Subsection (b) (4) states in part (management must not) deceive or willfully obstruct any person’s right to compete for employment directly violated . And Title 5 2302, Subsection (b) (6) states in part (Management must not) ‘ grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regutation to any employee or applicant for employment. , In Terrance Allen, MD v George Iranon, 283 F 3d 1070 (9"" cir 2002). The court found that the defendant’s manager (Hall) mispresented himself and gave false testimony discrediting his testimony. In addition the court found that defendant Hall did not follow standard operating procedures. The Misrepresentation and failure to follow standard procedures both permit an inference that the reasons given by defendant were false and pretextual. : The above case mirrors the plaintiff's case as the admissions document defendant’s manager (Jerry Erwin) made false statements under oath to the EEO Investigator and He (Jerry Erwin) failed to follow standard procedures in the selection of the Human Resources Specialist GS-12 (selecting official Charles Love). Directly violated the Prohibited Personnel Practices when this selecting official was not given any certificates and was only given the name of the selectee (Frank Erwin).