Case: 22-1288 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 02/02/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JULIA C. LEGGETT, Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS, Respondent ______________________

2022-1288 ______________________

Petition for review of a decision of the Board of Direc- tors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights in No. 20-LC-18 (CV). ______________________

Decided: February 2, 2023 ______________________

JENNIE CATHRYNE BLAINE WATSON, Alan Lescht and Associates, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

JOHN D. UELMEN, Office of General Counsel, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. ______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. Case: 22-1288 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 02/02/2023

2 LEGGETT v. OCWR

PER CURIAM. Ms. Julia Leggett filed a claim with the Office of Con- gressional Workplace Rights against her employing office, the Library of Congress, alleging that it unlawfully dis- criminated against her on the bases of her race, color, and national origin when she was not selected for the position of Supervisory Librarian (Acquisitions and Collections). An OCWR Merits Hearing Officer granted summary judgment for the Library on Ms. Leggett’s claim. The OCWR’s Board of Directors affirmed summary judgment, determining that Ms. Leggett failed to adduce sufficient evidence for a factfinder to conclude that the Library’s asserted non-dis- criminatory reasons for hiring a white selectee were a pre- text for unlawful discrimination. Ms. Leggett now appeals the Board’s determination. We have jurisdiction under 2 U.S.C. § 1407(a)(1) and review the Board’s decision de novo. 1 Ms. Leggett’s appeal relies on the theory that she was significantly more qualified than the selectee, such that the Library’s decision to nevertheless hire the selectee is

1 OCWR argues that we review the Board’s fac- tual findings for substantial evidence. See Respondent’s Br. at 13–15. Summary judgment, however, has no factual findings and is reviewed de novo. See Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Sum- mary judgment, however, is, of course, in all respects re- viewed de novo.”); see also M & J Coal Co. v. United States, 47 F.3d 1148, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[S]ummary judgment is a question of law subject to complete and independent review by this court.” (quotation marks and citation omit- ted)). Case: 22-1288 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 02/02/2023

LEGGETT v. OCWR 3

evidence of discrimination sufficient to survive summary judgment. Courts have held that, to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must show that she was “significantly better qualified for the job.” Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc); see also Martinez v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n-C.R. Div., 775 F.3d 685, 687 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that qualifications evidence may estab- lish pretext where plaintiff was “clearly better qualified such that the qualifications are so widely disparate that no reasonable employer would have made the same decision” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Millbrook v. IBP, Inc., 280 F.3d 1169, 1179–80 (7th Cir. 2002) (adopting the Fifth Circuit’s “clearly better qualified” standard and ex- plaining that it is the same standard as the Second, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that qualifications evidence may establish pretext where the plaintiff’s qualifications are “clearly superior” to those of the selectee). In close cases, however, a reasonable factfinder “would usually assume that the employer is more capable of assessing the significance of small differ- ences in the qualifications of the candidates, or that the employer simply made a judgment call.” Aka, 156 F.3d at 1294. To be sure, Ms. Leggett was qualified for this position. Ms. Leggett holds a master’s degree in Library and Infor- mation Sciences. At the time of the selection, she had worked at the Library for close to 30 years, 15 of which were as a Senior Acquisition and Collections Librarian. During this period, she performed all aspects of acquisi- tions work, from creating broader acquisition strategies to selecting sources and negotiating agreements with ven- dors. She thus had extensive experience in acquisitions. A reasonable factfinder—when considering the evi- dence in the light most favorable to Ms. Leggett—could Case: 22-1288 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 02/02/2023

4 LEGGETT v. OCWR

conclude that this was a close case but not that Ms. Leggett was “significantly” or “clearly” more qualified than the se- lectee. Like Ms. Leggett, the selectee also had a master’s in Library and Information Sciences. The selectee also had substantial experience in acquisitions, even if she might have had less than Ms. Leggett. And experience in acquisi- tions was not the only criterion for the position. The open position was for a library section head, a supervisory posi- tion. The selectee here had more managerial experience, after having already served as an acting supervisor for a different library section. In short, we agree with OCWR that Ms. Leggett has not shown that there is a genuine dispute that the Li- brary’s asserted non-discriminatory reasons for passing on Ms. Leggett were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. We have considered Ms. Leggett’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For these reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision. AFFIRMED COSTS

No costs.