Whether an unlawful detail into a position prior to officially filling it is relevant to raise an inference of pretext, when the prima facie stage under McDonnell Douglas drops out of the picture?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that OPM's promotion of a young male because he was more qualified was legitimate and that the facts pertaining to his unlawful detail into a position prior to its official filling were irrelevant and failed to show pretext, which conflicts with a 4" Circuit case holding USPS's promotions of whites because they had more experience was due to an unlawful detailing process. The appellate courts are also divided over whether a requisite inference of discrimination can be drawn from: details, unjustified delays, and regulatory violations in filling positions, and/or are relevant for establishing pretext, and whether experience obtained from an unlawful detail should be excluded. The questions presented are: Whether an unlawful detail into a position prior to officially filling it is relevant to raise an inference of pretext, when the prima facie stage under McDonnell Douglas drops out of the picture? Whether experience obtained from an unlawful detail should be set aside as fruit of the poisonous tree?