Case: Caraballo$-$Caraballo v$.$ Corr. Admin., $829$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $53(1$st Cir. $2018)$

Issue: Whether the Corrections Department for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico discriminated against a female corrections officer under a disparate treatment claim?

Facts: Corrections Officer Vilmarie Caraballo$-$Caraballo filed this Title VII gender discrimination action against her employer, the Corrections Department of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, after she was transferred and replaced by one male employee, and then, after the transfer of that employee, by a second male employee. C$.$O$.$ Caraballo had a High School diploma and had worked in the Radio Communications Area for six years before being transferred to the Inmate Commissary. Her replacement had an Associate's Degree in Computer Programming and a license from a radio communications association. Caraballo's supervisor requested her return to the Radio Area, but was denied with no explanation.

Decision: The First Circuit reversed summary judgment on Caraballo$$s disparate treatment claim. $$Caraballo has $...$ established a prima facie case of gender discrimination. She was successfully performing her position, was adversely transferred, and was twice replaced by someone whom a reasonable person could consider similarly $($or less$)$ qualified,$$ the Court concluded. $$Because Caraballo established a prima facie case of gender discrimination that her employer failed to rebut, the district court erred by granting summary judgment in the Department$$s favor.$$ The fact that the employer has already deemed the plaintiff minimally qualified undermines any basis for preventing the plaintiff from relying on her experience and reputation in establishing the similar qualifications element.

$1.$ What is the distinction the court is making between what the District Court did in comparing Caraballo's education credentials with Cordero's versus comparing their existing experience after employment?

$2.$ How could a performance appraisal play a role in changing the outcome of this disparate treatment discrimination case?