Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-applicant’s Title VII action alleging that she was passed over for girls and boys assistant cross-country coach positions on account of her gender. Record contained triable issues as to whether defendant’s decision-makers bent rules in favor of successful male applicants for said jobs, where: (1) plaintiff had trouble securing initial interview for girls’ coaching job in spite of her years of experience as running coach and runner; (2) defendant contacted plaintiff’s references sooner than normal while contacting references of one successful applicant at normal time and failing to contact references of other successful candidate; (3) interviewers for both jobs displayed arguable sex-role stereotypes, where plaintiff and successful applicant had previously resigned prior positions due to family obligations, yet plaintiff’s declaration to full commitment to coaching was questioned, while successful applicant’s commitment to coaching was not questioned; and (4) defendant applied different and inconsistent reasons (i.e., recent coaching experience and rapport with members of cross-country team) as hiring rationales that favored successful male applicant for each job, even though boys and girls coaching jobs were nearly identical. (Dissent filed.)