Please assist. Please do not assist if all can't be answered throughly. Thank you!

71 Tabor k, Hiltr, Inc, 703 E.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013). Chapter 7: Hiring and Promotion Decisions. 263 264 Part 2: The Hiring Process Chapter 7: Hiring and Promotion Decisions 265 Koivunen had fewer years of experience) to support_ that were free of any discriminatory animus." Here, there the City's argument that Koivunen's credentials were are genuine issues of material fact whether the City dis"obviously" superior. Hilde's extremely low trainingand-employment score, without justification, is further evidence of pretext when compared to the higher scores CASE QUESTIONS 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the of other finalists with less training and experience. Thus, Hilde has met his burden of showing the City's reasonappeals court decide? 2. The commissioners apparently desired a long-term appointment and believed that the plaintiff's retireing that Koivunen was the most quation. The district court held that the eight-year age gap ment eligibility made it likely that he would, in fact, between Hilde and Koivunen "dooms" Hilde's case, find-__ retire soon. Legally speaking, what is wrong with ing Kolvunen wat? Would an employer ever be justified in considing Koivunen was not "substantially younger." This court__ that? Would an employer ever bejustified ing a candidate's propensity to retire? has assumed without deciding that even a six-year gap is 3. The city also argues that it chose to promote the most retirement-eligible because of his age. They also thought qualified candidate. What is the evidence that this was pretext? Koivunen would stay in the position for at least seven 4. As a practical matter, what should the commissioners years before he could retire. Therefore, the age difference have done differently in this situation? Why would was substantial in this case. these different measures be legally advisable? Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or The City is "certainly entitled to rely at trial on evidence that its employment decision was based upon 5. Do you agree why not? lepitimate enhipctive criteria and subjective impressions