[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Argument is 221288, Leggett versus OCWR.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Is it Ms.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
Watson or Ms.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
Blaine Watson?

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
Jenny Catherine Blaine Watson.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
I'll respond to anything, Your Honor, but good morning.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
Well, you don't really mean that.

[00:00:20] Speaker 02:
All right, please proceed.

[00:00:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you for hearing this case.

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
We are challenging the decision of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights to dispose of the employment discrimination claim of Julia Leggett on summary judgment.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
In 2020, the Library of Congress passed Ms.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
Leggett over for a promotion.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
We read it.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
We know everything that happened.

[00:00:47] Speaker 02:
So let me ask you.

[00:00:49] Speaker 02:
Faces for discrimination.

[00:00:51] Speaker 02:
I mean, you make an argument that there was some, that she was more qualified than the candidate that got the job.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
Is that enough?

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
I mean, wouldn't you have to show she was vastly more qualified?

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
One, I'm not even sure there's a dispute.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
In your view, you're making a case that she was more qualified.

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
We are not personnel experts that are there.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
So we can't settle distinctions in our resume.

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
Is that enough for you?

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
You say she wasn't more qualified.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
The other person wasn't unqualified, right?

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, we believe there is a triable issue of fact upon this, at the very least.

[00:01:36] Speaker 00:
But yes, it's our position that Ms.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
Leggett was vastly more qualified, that there was a gulf between her qualifications and those of the selectee, and that that's reflected in the record.

[00:01:48] Speaker 02:
Well, what the record reflects, and you acknowledge fairly, as you should, there was a problem with her job interview.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
And so to the extent that the qualifications at some level, again, I don't know how to evaluate.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
It can't just be time.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
It has to be performance, understand the details of this.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
But even you acknowledge that in this interview context, she didn't do very well, right?

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
Understood, Your Honor.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
On the topic of her qualifications, I understand that none of us here does what these folks do for a living.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
But if I may, I would point out the position was for a supervisory acquisitions and collections librarian.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
And Ms.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
Leggett had been a senior acquisitions and collections librarian for 15 years at the time.

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
of the selection and she has the record reflects excellent performance.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
We listed in several instances the numerous aspects of the technical carrying out of acquisitions duties at the Library of Congress.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
As the respondent noted in their brief, perhaps the court would not rely only on Ms.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
Leggett's evaluation of her qualifications.

[00:03:07] Speaker 00:
We would not necessarily agree with that as a hard and fast rule, but for one thing, her recitations of her qualifications are simply a matter of fact, that they're true and not really disputed.

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
But also the record includes input from

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
Her colleague, Dr. Dongfang Xiao, who has given a sworn affidavit wherein he expressed that Ms.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
Leggett's 15 years of direct experience in carrying out of acquisitions duties at the Library of Congress made her, I'm paraphrasing, but the shoe in for this position.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
She'd been doing the job that's one step below for 15 years when this vacancy announcement became formally open to be permanently filled.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
So your position in this case is if she wasn't selected, it's got to be discriminatory.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
Well, our position is not that it's only based on her vastly superior qualifications.

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
I think in some cases,

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
That can certainly be enough to survive summary judgment, which is the decision on appeal here, not a decision on a hearing on the merits, I feel I should point out.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
But there are other aspects of this situation from which a reasonable trial of fact could infer that the true reasons behind the decision had to do with her being a mainland Chinese person.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
What's the evidence of that point?

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
The evidence of that point.

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
That she was not selected.

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
That's part of it.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
The other part is not selected because of her ethnicity or because of discrimination.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
What's the evidence of the discrimination?

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
So the evidence in the record in that regard includes the decision maker, the selecting official in this matter, Lillian Gassy, had made disparaging comments about Chinese people, too, Ms.

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
Leggett, in the past.

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
Well, I understood several things about that.

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
One is that it was a while ago, and it was in a social context, not in the work context, which is of some significance.

[00:05:13] Speaker 02:
The other thing is I didn't think you were alleging that.

[00:05:15] Speaker 02:
In your brief, you had that in the background facts.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
But in terms of when you were making your argument section with regard to discrimination, did not reference that.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
Am I misremembering?

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
I didn't see any referencing back to that in terms of your argument.

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
You mentioned that as

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
Yeah, background facts, but not as an argument for discrimination.

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
Am I wrong about that?

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
I wouldn't say you're wrong, Your Honor.

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
However, I would put forth that we recited it in the facts, and in a case where the issue, is there a triable issue of fact?

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
Those type of comments that are made, like in this case, so long ago, I think it was like 20 years or so, when they were friends, and they were having lunch.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
And as far as I can tell, the comments that you were referring to were not directed to Ms.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
Leggett.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
They were somewhat general in terms, but not directed to her.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
What other evidence of discrimination do you have?

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
Well, on that point, I'll simply clarify.

[00:06:20] Speaker 00:
It was about nine years prior to the decision.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
And included, Ms.

[00:06:25] Speaker 00:
Gassi expressing that she believes Chinese people have been disrespectful to her.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
The Jewish crudeness in this type of case makes those type of comments, it renders them little in weight.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
Understood, Your Honor.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
And our position is not that that carries the day, but that it should not be disregarded.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
And it's part of the whole picture that we're putting forth here.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
But unless you have something else, you're not going to survive so much judgment.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
Well, the other main aspect that we believe makes this at the very least a triable issue are irregularities in the selection process over which Ms.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
Gassi exercised control.

[00:07:06] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:07:06] Speaker 00:
Gassi was the selecting official.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
She named the other panelists on the selection panel who are to be subject matter experts in the field in which they're making the selection.

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
And the Library of Congress utilizes a merit systems plan to regulate a selection such as this.

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
That merit systems plan says that subject matter experts are to be people who are at least the same grade level or higher.

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
and who are currently performing have performed or have extensive knowledge of the duties of the position they're selecting for.

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
In this case, Ms.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
Gassy selected two people who do not meet those criteria.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
They have not worked in acquisitions and said themselves that they did not know much about that aspect of the job, and they were selecting the head of the acquisition and collections section

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
where Ms.

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
Leggett had been performing on a direct basis herself, I would say, a subject matter expert on that job for 15 years.

[00:08:20] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:08:20] Speaker 04:
Gassy?

[00:08:20] Speaker 04:
These people were just, they were other managers at this level, right?

[00:08:25] Speaker 00:
They were at the, yes, they were at the requisite level, right.

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
I'm a little confused, frankly, just practically speaking.

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
If you think the people on the panel have to have vast specific subject matter expertise in acquisitions, who you would pick?

[00:08:45] Speaker 04:
And they have to be at the manager level or above, unless for some reason,

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
You know, a lot of these former managers were still in the Library of Congress in different positions, which seems unlikely.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I can't say that that's unlikely, but my speculation would be that it is likely, because Ms.

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
Leggett herself would have been one of those people.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
But she can't serve on a panel for a job she's applying to.

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
No, not in this instance, but in a hypothetical future instance.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
Well, she couldn't have served on this panel anyway, because it has to be at the level or higher, right?

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
And she isn't at that level.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
So again,

[00:09:20] Speaker 04:
I think the standard you're setting here is unworkable in terms of who would be on these panels.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
If it has to be somebody that has precise experience doing that job and that job is open, who's it going to be?

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
Unless for some reason, those people have been elevated into upper level management positions and you can pick those.

[00:09:41] Speaker 04:
But that is not really, I don't think, the way that the workplace usually works.

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
If you're picking a management job at a particular place, you look to other managers that do similar types of activities.

[00:09:55] Speaker 04:
And I would think you would concede that these other people on the panel were managers that did similar types of library activities, right?

[00:10:04] Speaker 04:
They just didn't do acquisition.

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
They didn't do this type of library activity, Your Honor.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
And what does that got to do at the bottom?

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
What is the cook between that and discrimination?

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
I mean, every employee who doesn't get a job, I mean, not getting a job because somebody thinks that the selection committee should have included a different type of person, that's not something we review generally in the absence of a discriminatory allegation that underlies it, right?

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, the selection process was orchestrated by Ms.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
Gassi.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
And if you scrutinize it, it was set up to obfuscate the fact that Julia Leggett was the obvious person for this job.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
She'd been doing this job for 15 years.

[00:10:47] Speaker 04:
No, she'd been doing a different job for 15 years.

[00:10:50] Speaker 04:
And they were picking a management spot for this department.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
She was a GS-13.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
And this is a GS-15 position, right?

[00:10:57] Speaker 02:
So she clearly wasn't doing the work.

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
But she was doing the work that she would be overseeing in that position.

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
And not only did the selecting official, select subject matter experts who we contend were not appropriate for that role.

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
And we did cite it.

[00:11:18] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you hypothetically.

[00:11:20] Speaker 04:
Suppose your view is right, that in order to serve on this panel, you have to have subject matter expertise and have actually performed extensive acquisition work, which I take it is somewhat of your position.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
What if there's no people at the Library of Congress that has that expertise?

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
Who do you put on the panel?

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, that's a tough question to answer.

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
I would like to clarify that we wouldn't have this argument, I think, as strongly if she had chosen people with any direct experience dealing with acquisitions.

[00:11:56] Speaker 04:
There are no people, there is no person at a GS-15 level or above that has substantive acquisition.

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
experience.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
What you have is a bunch of managers in other departments.

[00:12:09] Speaker 04:
That's all your choices.

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
So if that's the choice, why does that somehow render this a discriminatory act?

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
Well, because of the other circumstances.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
And my guess is that that wouldn't be the case, that there are people at the appropriate level with direct acquisitions experience.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
And the other two panel members testify that they have experience, but from a customer point of view, versus actually facilitating the acquisition's functions.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
So my guess is that that hypothetical is unlikely.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
In our brief, we alluded to two other selection processes that Ms.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
Gassi oversaw.

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
I mean, frankly, I understand your point.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
But it doesn't seem very unlikely to me, having worked in a government agency for a long time, that people that have subject matter expertise are the people at lower levels.

[00:13:05] Speaker 04:
And then managers get elevated from that sometimes.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
But the other managers at that level usually come from other departments.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
I would simply reference back to the merit system plan that the agency has implemented for itself, which says that subject matter experts should be performing the job, have performed the job, or know about it.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
But part of this job is management, right?

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
That's true.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
So these people, you concede, I think, that these people have management expertise.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
That's true, Your Honor.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
OK, you're into your rebuttals, so why don't we hear from the government and reserve your time.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:13:50] Speaker 03:
My name is John Olden.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
I'm representing the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
If you're not familiar with our office, we're an independent, nonpartisan office that was created by the Congressional Accountability Act to decide various labor employment cases, including those under Title VII.

[00:14:08] Speaker 01:
How many cases do you all dispose of in a given year?

[00:14:11] Speaker 01:
I'm not very familiar with your

[00:14:14] Speaker 03:
Yes, I mean, obviously, we're limited to the legislative branch.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
I mean, I think on a processing, we process 50 or so cases in a year.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
Our board decides, at least in the last few years, a very few number of cases.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
So the board is the ultimate decision-maker.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
So the board is composed of five lawyers from across the United States who decide these cases.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:14:38] Speaker 02:
OK, the thing that struck me, stuck out at me about your argument was principally your standard of review.

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
This is summary judgment.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
And the standard of review is de novo.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
And you seem to suggest otherwise.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
And not that the case would be decided on the basis of what that standard is.

[00:15:01] Speaker 02:
But I think you're wrong.

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
Well, I think this court has consistently said that the findings of fact are reviewed for substantive.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
But there aren't any findings of fact in summary judgment.

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
Well, there is certainly in the decision, if you look at pages one and two of the appendix, the board did make findings.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
But no, they didn't.

[00:15:23] Speaker 04:
I mean, just as a matter of law, what they're deciding on summary judgment is that there is no genuine issue of material fact, not finding something.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
In fact, if they had made findings of fact when there were genuine issues, it would be legal error, wouldn't it?

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:15:39] Speaker 03:
I agree with you that the legal question is a de novo review.

[00:15:45] Speaker 04:
And for us, it's whether there's a genuine issue of whether Ms.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
Leggett was substantially more qualified than the selectee.

[00:15:54] Speaker 03:
The issue is whether or not she was discriminated.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:15:58] Speaker 04:
But her, at least, theory for discrimination, setting aside the social interaction, is that she was substantially more qualified.

[00:16:07] Speaker 04:
So your argument about qualifications is pretextual.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
So I think that there's another point of discrimination where the panel or panel members

[00:16:19] Speaker 01:
remarked on the heavy accident in this wing it had.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
There's evidence of that, correct?

[00:16:26] Speaker 03:
I don't believe there is any evidence in the record of that, actually.

[00:16:29] Speaker 01:
That those type of statements were made?

[00:16:31] Speaker 03:
I do not believe there's any evidence of that in the record.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
I believe if you, I think we challenged in our brief

[00:16:40] Speaker 03:
some of the description of the interview process saying that support for that, a prior brief had been cited.

[00:16:50] Speaker 03:
But there's nothing in the record that supports that.

[00:16:53] Speaker 04:
Well, let me just ask you this.

[00:16:54] Speaker 04:
And you don't have any real answer to this.

[00:16:56] Speaker 04:
But I mean, practically speaking, it seems like a lot of this came down to the interview.

[00:17:03] Speaker 04:
And part of the problem with the interview was a misunderstanding about the time and that her interview was cut short.

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
Why didn't they just reschedule the interview or give her more time?

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
I mean, it smacks a little bit of unequal treatment.

[00:17:17] Speaker 04:
When the selectee got a full opportunity, it was not rushed through and put in a bad position.

[00:17:25] Speaker 03:
You know, I'm not sure the record, again, reflects that that, in fact, occurred.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
I mean, if you look at the record.

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
Are you saying that her allegations that she thought the interview was at 11.15 and the panels are just not true?

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
No, that is absolutely true.

[00:17:39] Speaker 03:
But that's what I'm asking you about.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
That is true.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
But I think the idea that she was rushed through the interview

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
That's not supported by the record.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
In fact, she testified that she thought the interview went well.

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
I mean, her position has always been that it went well, and that this whole idea of somehow the mix-up of time led to her doing poorly during that.

[00:18:00] Speaker 04:
So those statements in the brief you think are unsupported in the record?

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
Yes, I think so.

[00:18:04] Speaker 03:
I don't think they're supported by the record here.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
Am I correct that the panelists downgraded Ms.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
Leggett in the area of communication skills?

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
Yes, that's correct.

[00:18:14] Speaker 01:
One of the problems that they had with communication, her communication, were grammatical errors.

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
I believe they did mention that, yes.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
So there is evidence in the record that go towards perhaps accent or inability to speak English at a certain level.

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
Why would that not go to the ethnicity of the individual?

[00:18:39] Speaker 03:
Well, one of the knowledge, skills, and abilities was the ability to communicate orally.

[00:18:45] Speaker 03:
And if you read the depositions, for the most part, why she was downgraded is because the approach, her interview, her answers were very disorganized.

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
And she talked about things that were not relevant.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
And that was what most of them.

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
No, no, no.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
I'm talking about the grammatical layers.

[00:19:03] Speaker 03:
Again, as far as I read the testimony from the people who interviewed her, that was not a major factor.

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
Well, she was severely downgraded in the area of communication skills.

[00:19:20] Speaker 01:
Isn't this evidence that she should have gone and entitled her to have a hearing?

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
Isn't this evidence a genuine issue, a material fact, whether these comments dealing with grammatical errors couple with the other comments that yet have low probative weight but have a little bit of weight, the ones that remained nine years ago?

[00:19:42] Speaker 01:
Doesn't this present a situation where perhaps this should have gone to a hearing, not when, but to a hearing?

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
Well, again, I think that what the evidence shows that among the KSAs, that was a very minor weighted thing.

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
So if you look at all of the other areas and look at the evaluations from all of these.

[00:20:05] Speaker 01:
Was the grammar of the other individuals that were interviewed, was their grammar noted in their notes, whether it was good grammar, bad grammar?

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
I don't recall.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
I'll be honest with you.

[00:20:23] Speaker 03:
I don't remember.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
But it was not one of the substantial elements for the KSAs, the communication.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
It was one of the factors in the knowledge, skills, and abilities.

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
But the ability to communicate orally was considered of less weight than the other factors.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
So mostly they were concerned about her lack of her.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
She had less management experience than the selectee.

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
Anything further?

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
We'll restart two minutes of the event.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
If I may briefly address

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
On the issue of weighting lightly the KSA of oral communication, one of the panelists rated Miss Leggett at a one, which could be considered disqualifying, which under the circumstances, given the confusion about the time and the background that we've mentioned before that we allege has some weight in this case of Miss Gassy's bias toward the Chinese, does at least create a triable issue of fact.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
One of the highest rated KSAs was ability to complete acquisitions duties.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
That's number one.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
Leggett, I don't think the respondent is arguing that Ms.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
Leggett does not have those abilities.

[00:21:54] Speaker 04:
What did she get for that?

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
I believe she got a four, Your Honor.

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
Out of five?

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
I believe it's out of four.

[00:22:03] Speaker 04:
So she got the highest score on her technical skills.

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:22:08] Speaker 04:
Clearly, they weren't discriminating in evaluating her technical skills.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
It would be difficult to do.

[00:22:13] Speaker 00:
It's a fact.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
She had the experience.

[00:22:15] Speaker 04:
Well, if you want to discriminate, it's not difficult to do.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
You just mark it down lower, and that's evidence of discrimination because it's intentionally marking her down.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
So she got the score she deserved on the technical skills.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
Our position is that this application process was set up so that it could be done in a more subtle way, a way to obfuscate that she was the best qualified candidate.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
And it's not one grand statement that you're not getting this job because I don't like the Chinese.

[00:22:48] Speaker 00:
It's several circumstances, all of which

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
came together to lead to Ms.

[00:22:54] Speaker 00:
Leggett not getting this job.

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
And at least one other witness, who would have reason to know, says that that's a discredit to the Library of Congress.

[00:23:02] Speaker 00:
Dr. Dongfang Xiao said this, and is therefore our position that this should have gone to a hearing on the merits rather than disposal on summary judgment.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
Thank both sides, and the case is submitted.