“A reasonable jury could consider the strength of [Plaintiff’s] qualifications vis-à-vis the successful younger applicants as undermining the credibility of [Defendant’s] proffered hiring rationale—i.e., that the younger successful applicants were selected because they were all better qualified than her. Indeed, evidence of a plaintiff’s superior qualifications is directly probative of pretext, Patterson, 491 U.S. at 187, and [Plaintiff] need not establish that she was “clearly better qualified” in order for this court to consider her comparatively exemplary qualifications in tandem with the other evidence, outlined infra, supporting the inference that [Defendant’s] proffered hiring rationale is pretextual. Id. at *9.

 

“[E]vidence showed that, measured in terms of education and experience, [Plaintiff] was more qualified than each of the successful younger applicants, except one…. For example, [Defendant]…select[ed]…a substantially younger applicant with only an AA certification and twenty-three fewer years of teaching experience than [Plaintiff]. [Defendant] also selected a substantially younger candidate…who had only an AA certification and only half the years of overall teaching experience as [Plaintiff]. Similarly, [Defendant]…hired a substantially younger applicant with only an AA certification and ten years of teaching experience. Defendant also hir[ed] a substantially younger applicant with only an AA certification and seven years of overall experience.”

 

Stennett v. Tupelo Public School Dist., 2015 WL 4569205 (5th Cir. 2015)