Ratliff v. City of Gainesville
Decision Date | 17 July 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 99-41472,99-41472 |
Citation | 256 F.3d 355 |
Parties | (5th Cir. 2001) ALAN D. RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Before WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges, and WALTER S. SMITH, JR.,* District Judge.
Alan D. Ratliff ("Ratliff") appeals the trial court's jury instructions, as well as its decision to admit certain spoiliation evidence, in an age discrimination lawsuit that he filed against the City of Gainesville, Texas ("the City" or "Gainesville"). For the following reasons, we affirm in part, and we reverse in part and remand for a new trial.
In November 1994, Gainesville hired a recruiting firm, Ralph Anderson & Associates ("RAA"), to conduct a search for a new city manager. David Eisenlohr ("Eisenlohr"), then president of RAA, met with Gainesville City Council ("the Council" or "City Council") members to question them regarding their needs for the position. Based on these interviews, but without needing the final approval of the City in order to run the advertisements or job listings, Eisenlohr compiled a written profile of the position. The profile stated that the selectee must have: (1) a diverse general background in municipal management and experience as a city manager, city administrator, chief administrative officer, or an assistant city manager in a similar or larger community; (2) a bachelor's degree, but with preference for a master's degree; and (3) preferably, experience in a stand alone community, i.e., one that provides its own solid waste collection, landfill, water, wastewater treatment, airport, and cemetery. The profile, however, did not require an engineering degree.
An advertisement approved by the City stated that it sought an "up-and-coming, aggressive" leader with a bachelor's degree in public or business administration or a related field. It also stated that a master's degree was preferred, but it made no mention of an engineering degree requirement.
Gainesville's mayor, James Hatcher ("Hatcher"), and members of the City Council told Eisenlohr that the City was looking for a "younger person" who was "very aggressive, very high energy and was not there thinking in terms of putting down roots." Eisenlohr also testified that in a preliminary interview with Ratliff, Eisenlohr stated that although the entire City Council selected the final candidate, Hatcher "called the shots" on the Council. In addition, Eisenlohr stated to Ratliff that the City was "looking for someone who would not plan on staying there, would use it as a stepping stone."
Ratliff was 54-years-old in early 1995, the time at which he applied for the city manager position through RAA. Ratliff had neither an advanced nor an engineering degree. Ratliff, however, had 26 years of managerial experience in city government, including six years of experience as an assistant city manager of Plano, Texas, a small suburban town. He was also the city manager for Coppell, Texas ("Coppell"). The City contends that his experience in these cities did not qualify him for the position in Gainesville, given its view that those cities are not stand alone cities. Similarly, it put into evidence that Ratliff's tenure in Coppell was not without conflict and that he resigned his position as a result of pressure from Coppell's City Council.
Eisenlohr selected Ratliff as a finalist for the position, along with four younger finalists, all of whom were in their thirties. Larry Jackson ("Jackson"), a recommender of Ratliff and an acquaintance of Hatcher, testified that after he recommended Ratliff, Hatcher informed him that the City was looking for "a young man who would probably come in for a short time and move on." Each candidate was interviewed over a two-day period in February 1995 by the City Council, which included at least three individuals who were at least ten years or more older than Ratliff. The Council tape recorded and used certified agendas of the sessions, in accordance with Texas law. In March 1995, several of the City Council members lost their elected seats, and each of these individuals destroyed or discarded, upon immediate notice of their losses, all notes, correspondence, and memoranda related to the hiring process.1
The City ultimately rejected Ratliff and hired Alan Mueller ("Mueller") instead, a man in his early thirties with a master's degree and an engineering background. Mueller, however, had less experience than Ratliff. Several council members indicated that Mueller's civil engineering background would be helpful to the City in its negotiations with contractors for several current and pending city projects.
After being notified of the City's hiring decision, Ratliff attempted to contact several City Council members. He succeeded in taping a portion of a conversation with Councilman Kenneth Kaden ("Kaden"), then Mayor Pro Tem,2 who stated that he believed the only reason Ratliff was not hired was his age. Kaden, however, testified that he was simply attempting to mollify Ratliff and to end the conversation quickly since Kaden was busy at work. Kaden also stated in an affidavit that the Council liked neither Ratliff's personality nor demeanor during the interview, but that the council members were too polite to inform Ratliff of this.
Ratliff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on August 29, 1995, and after a two year investigation, the EEOC concluded that Gainesville had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA")3 because "there was direct evidence that it was seeking a young man for the position who would come in for two (2) to three (3) years and move on to better things." A jury, however, subsequently found that the City had not violated the ADEA. Ratliff now appeals.4
Ratliff argues that the trial court erred when it refused to charge the jury with the following inference instruction: "If the Plaintiff disproves the reasons offered by Defendants by a preponderance of the evidence, you may presume that the employer was motivated by age discrimination." This inference instruction would have allowed the jurors to infer discriminatory motive from Ratliff's prima facie case combined with proof that Gainesville's proffered reasons were pretextual. Similarly, Ratliff contends that the trial judge erred when it gave a "pretext plus" instruction to the jury, in lieu of "a permissive pretext only" standard. The trial judge instructed the jury, in part, with the following charge:
If you find that the City of Gainesville has articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring Mr. Ratliff, then you must find for The City of Gainesville. However, if Mr. Ratliff can show that the articulated reasons given by The City of Gainesville are (1) false, and (2) a determining or motivating factor for his non-hire was his age, then you may find for Mr. Ratliff.
This Court reviews jury instructions for harmful error. Rubinstein v. Adm'r of Tulane Educ. Fund, 218 F.3d 392, 404 (5th Cir. 2000), reh'g en banc denied, 232 F.3d 212, cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1393 (2001). "Even if an instruction erroneously states the applicable law or provides insufficient guidance, this Court will not disturb the judgment unless the error could have affected the outcome of the trial." Id. However, "[c]hallenges to jury instructions are reviewed to determine whether the court's charge, as a whole, is a correct statement of the law and clearly instructs jurors on the legal principles at issue." Id.
Ratliff cites Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), in support of his arguments that the trial court erred when it failed to give the jury the inference and "permissive pretext only" instructions. The Reeves Court stated that "a plaintiff's prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated." 530 U.S. at 148. In contrast, Gainesville counters that the jury instructions were correct, given that the trial judge's General Instructions5 to the jury complied with The Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Charges.6 With respect to the inference instruction, the City also states it would have simply been a redundancy and notes that this Circuit requires no such instruction.
We, however, find Ratliff's argument persuasive, in light of the Supreme Court's admonition in Reeves, as well as our precedent post-Reeves rejecting district court judgments that have not comported with Reeves. See, e.g., Blow v. City of San Antonio, Tex., 236 F.3d 293, 297 (5th Cir. 2001), reh'g en banc denied, 240 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2001) ( ); Evans v. City of Bishop, 238 F.3d 586, 591 (5th Cir. 2000) ( )(emphasis added) (quoting Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 n.10 (1981)); Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 223 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lightell v. Walker
...... Villio, LLC, Metairie, LA, for Tim Walker, Keith Moody, Manuel Adams, Thomas Bronk, Harahan City. SECTION: "B"(1) ORDER & REASONS Ivan L.R. Lemelle, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 527 ... Ratliff v. Aransas Cty., Tex. , 948 F.3d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing 527 F.Supp.3d 886 Piotrowski ......
-
Martin v. J.A.M. Distributing Co.
...413 F.3d at 476; Kanida v. Gulf Coast Med. Pers. LP, 363 F.3d 568, 574 (5th Cir.2004); West, 330 F.3d at 385; Ratliff v. City of Gainesville, 256 F.3d 355, 360 (5th Cir.2001). "Evidence demonstrating that the employer's explanation is false or unworthy of credence, taken together with the p......
-
Rodriguez v. Bexar Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
......2013), cert . denied ,134 S. Ct. 1789 (2014); Southwestern Bell Telephone , LP v . City of Houston , 529 F.3d 257, 260 (5th Cir. 2008); Hernandez ex rel . Hernandez v . Texas ......
-
Anderson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
...explanation." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (emphasis in original); see West, 330 F.3d at 385; Ratliff v. City of Gainesville, 256 F.3d 355, 360-62 (5th Cir.2001); Blow v. City of San Antonio, 236 F.3d 293, 297 (5th Cir.2001). "Evidence demonstrating that the employer's explanatio......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...with Kanida v. Gulf Coast Med. Pers. LP , 363 F.3d 568, 574 (5th Cir. 2004) (reaffirming holding of Ratliff v. City of Gainesville, Tex. , 256 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2001), that a pretext-plus instruction was improper because it incorrectly stated the plaintiff’s burden of proof under Reeves ).......
-
Texas commission on human rights act: procedures and remedies
...with Kanida v. Gulf Coast Med. Pers. LP , 363 F.3d 568, 574 (5th Cir. 2004) (reaffirming holding of Ratliff v. City of Gainesville, Tex. , 256 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2001), that a pretext-plus instruction was improper because it incorrectly stated the plaintiff’s burden of proof in light of Ree......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...with Kanida v. Gulf Coast Med. Pers. LP , 363 F.3d 568, 574 (5th Cir. 2004) (reaffirming holding of Ratliff v. City of Gainesville, Tex. , 256 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2001), that a pretext-plus instruction was improper because it incorrectly stated the plaintiff’s burden of proof under Reeves ).......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...with Kanida v. Gulf Coast Med. Pers. LP, 363 F.3d 568, 574 (5th Cir. 2004) (reaffirming holding of Ratliff v. City of Gainesville, Tex., 256 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2001), that a pretext-plus instruction was improper because it incorrectly stated the plaintiff’s burden of proof in light of Reeve......