Donna Glaesener v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 24-1007
_______________
DONNA GLAESENER,
Appellant
v.
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY;
PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02294)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on November 8, 2024
Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Filed November 12, 2024)

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Heidi R. Weintraub
JAVERBAUM WURGAFT H ICKS K AHN W IKSTROM & SININS
1000 Haddonfield Berlin Road
Laurel Oak Corporate Center, Suite 203
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Counsel for Appellant
Juan M. Barragan
Matthew Malysa
PORT A UTHORITY OF NEW Y ORK & N EW JERSEY
4 World Trade Center
150 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Counsel for Appellees
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
Though job interviews are subjective, they are usually legit-
imate tools for picking the best candidates. Donna Glaesener,
a black woman, has worked at the Port Authority Trans-Hud-
son Corporation for almost three decades. In April 2018, she
complained to the human-resources department that her “de-
partment was not diverse” and that she “felt that she was dis-
criminated against based on the many roles she had competi-
tively bid and did not receive as promotions.” App. 5, 566–67.
Two months later, she applied for a promotion to Safety Man-
ager, but a white male candidate got it. Soon after, she applied

-- 2 of 5 --

3
for another promotion, to Chief Operations Examiner. She was
one of four candidates who interviewed for that job, but a white
male candidate had a better interview score and got the job.
That December, she filed a formal EEOC complaint, alleging
the same discrimination. The following November, she sued
the Port Authority, alleging that it had denied her those promo-
tions because of her race.
Glaesener also applied for a February 2019 promotion to
Principal Programs & Training Coordinator, but another black
woman was chosen. And she applied for a September 2022
promotion to Superintendent of Transportation but lost out
again to the same black woman. Glaesener alleges that the Port
Authority denied her those promotions in retaliation for her
2018 discrimination grievances and her November 2019 dis-
crimination lawsuit.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the Port
Authority. It applied the familiar Title VII burden-shifting
framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792, 802–05 (1973). It found that the Port Authority had legit-
imate reasons for not promoting Glaesener that were neither
discriminatory or retaliatory, and that she had not shown that
those reasons were pretexts. We review the grant of summary
judgment de novo, viewing all facts and drawing all reasonable
inferences in her favor. Tundo v. County of Passaic, 923 F.3d
283, 286–87 (3d Cir. 2019).
Glaesener’s discrimination claims fail. She has no evidence
that she was passed over for Safety Manager because of her
race. True, she had been at the Port Authority longer than the
successful candidate. But she had only limited experience

-- 3 of 5 --

4
working with regulators, and none budgeting, managing employ-
ees directly, or developing capital programs. Plus, she had
not implemented safety compliance or emergency manage-
ment. The successful candidate had outstanding performance
and much more relevant experience from his time directing a
city fire department. She cites no evidence that he was trained
and groomed for the job because of his race, as opposed to his
greater readiness for it.
Nor does Glaesener cite evidence that she lost out on a pro-
motion to Chief Operations Examiner because of her race. She
stresses her bachelor’s degree, but none was required for the job.
She also denigrates her lower interview score as subjective.
But poor interview performance is a legitimate, non-discrimi-
natory reason for employment decisions. See, e.g., Turner v.
Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 563 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2009);
Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 977 F.3d 20, 30 (1st
Cir. 2020); Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1033–34
(11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Thus, employers may use interviews
so long as they assess relevant criteria and are not “entirely sub-
jective.” Jones v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 1260, 1267–68 (10th Cir.
2003); accord Turner, 563 F.3d at 1145.
Here, the interview questions were job-related because they
assessed the interviewees’ technical knowledge, general com-
petency, and communication skills. And there is no evidence
that the interviewers “injected their own additional subjective
criteria into the evaluation process.” Turner, 563 F.3d at 1145.
To the contrary, the applicants “answered the same questions,
and the interviewers ranked the applicants’ responses using
predetermined criteria.” Id. The District Court thus reasonably

-- 4 of 5 --

5
found no evidence that the interview here had been “manipu-
lat[ed] or abuse[d].” App 12.
Glaesener’s retaliation claims likewise fail. She has no evi-
dence that she was denied the promotion to Principal Programs
& Training Coordinator in retaliation for complaining about
discrimination in her division and filing the EEOC complaint.
She cites no evidence that any of the interviewers knew of her
lawsuit. What is more, the successful candidate was qualified,
having worked as Operations Examiner and then Assistant
Trainmaster for a total of eight years; no further experience or
certifications were required. The successful candidate also
scored best in the interview, which is why she got the job.
There is no evidence of retaliation.
Glaesener also has no evidence that she was denied promo-
tion to Superintendent of Transportation in retaliation for her
complaint and lawsuit from nearly three years earlier. The suc-
cessful candidate had an interview score of 44, versus
Glaesener’s 18. Glaesener was crying, “emotional,” and “very
flustered” in her interview; she even “slapped the table a few
times out of maybe frustration.” App. 15. She claims that the
interviewers’ notes omitted some detail, but nothing casts
doubt on their explanation that the successful candidate did
far better.
Because the Port Authority has legitimate, nondiscrimina-
tory, nonretaliatory reasons for each failure to promote, and
Glaesener has no evidence of pretext, we will affirm.

-- 5 of 5 --