Springer v. Convergys Customer Management Group

• Citation: 509 F.3d 1344
• Decision Date: 14 December 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-14652.,06-14652.
• Parties: Patricia SPRINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

509 F.3d 1344

Patricia SPRINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-14652.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

December 14, 2007.

Scott Thomas Fortune, Jax Beach, FL, for Springer.

Kristyne E. Kennedy, Randall Walker Lord, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Springer ("Plaintiff") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. ("Convergys") in her employment discrimination claim alleging a racially discriminatory failure to promote under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an African American woman, worked for Convergys and its predecessors from November 1983 until her termination seventeen years later in August 2001. During that time, Plaintiff worked in the Employee Care Organization within Convergys, holding various positions, including Account Representative, Team Manager, Instructor, Human Resources Staff Recruiter, and Operations Manager. As an Operations Manager, the position she held at the time of her termination, Plaintiff supervised team managers and several teams, totaling approximately fifty people.

Plaintiff consistently received satisfactory annual job evaluations. In fact, one of Plaintiff's supervisors testified that he was very satisfied with her performance and thought she had the potential to progress in the company and perform well in upper management positions. However, Plaintiff also demonstrated several performance deficiencies. In March 1999, Convergys placed Plaintiff on a developmental plan for the purpose of improving upon some of her professional weaknesses. A few of Plaintiff's subordinates had complained about the manner in which Plaintiff addressed them. Plaintiff later agreed to take some courses on proper management skills, but there is a dispute as to whether such courses were taken directly in response to the subordinates' complaints or merely to advance Plaintiff's career prospects.

Other employees of Convergys noted that Plaintiff had difficulty accepting feedback and demonstrated weak communication skills. A Director at Convergys, Patrice London, testified that based on her observations and interactions with the Plaintiff, she regularly exhibited grammatical and spelling mistakes in her work-related emails. In addition, the Plaintiff demonstrated attendance and punctuality problems. Plaintiff admitted being late or missing several scheduled meetings; however, it appears from the record that several other employees had been late or missed scheduled meetings without being disciplined.

In 2001, Convergys had an opening for the position of Senior Operations Manager. Plaintiff had applied for a similar opening in November 2000, but she did not receive the promotion. In 2001, there were four Operations Managers, including Plaintiff, eligible for the Senior Operations Manager promotion. The other three eligible Operations Managers included a Caucasian woman named Susan Johnson, an African American woman, and an African American man.

In March 2001, Convergys announced that Susan Johnson, Plaintiff's Caucasian co-worker, had received the promotion to Senior Operations Manager. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Human Resources Department stating that she was more qualified for the position than Susan Johnson and had been denied the promotion because of her race. Plaintiff further claimed not to have known of the position's availability prior to Susan Johnson receiving the promotion.

Although it was Convergys' corporate policy that all job positions be posted for a minimum of three days to allow all qualified candidates to apply and be considered for the positions, there is a dispute as to whether this particular position was ever announced or posted internally. Patrice London, the supervisor in charge of selecting the candidate for the promotion, and Susan Johnson contend that the opening for the position was announced at a team meeting. However, Plaintiff and her two African American colleagues insist that no announcement was ever made.

A human resources representative for Convergys initiated an investigation into Plaintiff's claims and concluded that racial discrimination was not a factor in the promotion of Susan Johnson. Convergys eventually terminated Plaintiff in August 2001, stating that they were forced by business necessity to eliminate an Operations Manager position. In response, Plaintiff filed a complaint in district court against Convergys alleging, inter alia, that Convergys discriminated against her based upon her race when it promoted Susan Johnson to Senior Operations Manager. Plaintiff claimed that she was more qualified than Susan Johnson and that the position was never posted, in violation of company policy. Convergys moved for summary judgment on all seven counts asserted in Plaintiff's complaint. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Convergys on Count I alleging an unlawful failure to promote and Count II alleging disparate pay under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Counts V and VII alleging unlawful retaliation under state law and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, respectively. A trial was held and a jury concluded that Plaintiff's remaining counts claiming retaliatory discharge under federal and state law were baseless. Thereafter, the district court entered a final judgment in favor of Convergys on all seven counts in the complaint. Plaintiff's appeal is limited to Count I alleging an unlawful failure to promote under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

II. DISCUSSION

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment should be granted only when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

In cases where direct evidence of employment discrimination is lacking, we analyze the claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework, which requires the plaintiff to create an inference of discrimination through her prima facie case.¹ McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Once the plaintiff has made out the elements of the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a non-discriminatory basis for its employment action. Texas Dept. of Comty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must show that the proffered reasons were pretextual. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2749, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 146, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2108, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089.

For the purposes of its Motion for Summary Judgment only, Convergys conceded that Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination based upon a failure to promote.² Thus, the burden shifted to Convergys to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for promoting Susan Johnson rather than Plaintiff for the position of Senior Operations Manager. Convergys' articulated reason for promoting Susan Johnson was that she was the more qualified candidate. To support this assertion, Convergys provided substantial evidence that Susan Johnson's annual ratings were consistently higher than Plaintiff's. Convergys also pointed to Susan Johnson's significant experience relevant to the new position, including effective management of subordinates and prior experience with the specific client with whom the promoted person would be working.

It is undisputed that Susan Johnson was highly regarded by her co-workers. In fact, one of the African American Operations Managers eligible for the promotion commented that he believed Susan Johnson was more qualified than any other Operations Manager. Further, a former supervisor of Susan Johnson testified that she was a stellar performer that should have been promoted long before she was.³

Plaintiff argues that our holding in Joshi v. Florida State Univ. Health Ctr., 763 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir.1985), precludes Convergys from relying on the assertion that Susan Johnson was the more qualified candidate. In Joshi, we held that where a defendant did not consider the qualifications of the candidate from the protected class at the time of making the employment decision, it cannot later assert as a nondiscriminatory reason the superior qualifications of the candidate actually promoted. Id.

To prove that Convergys did not consider her qualifications, Plaintiff points to Patrice London's testimony that she did not consider Plaintiff a candidate for the Senior Operations Manager position. However, that statement, when read in the context of her testimony, indicates only that Patrice London's familiarity with Plaintiff's qualifications led her to the conclusion that Plaintiff was not a good candidate for the position. Patrice London testified that she had first-hand knowledge of Plaintiff's qualifications at the time Susan Johnson received the promotion, and it was that direct knowledge of Plainti...