Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough Cty. Bd of Cty. Com'Rs, No. 07-12672 Non-Argument Calendar.

Decision Date08 January 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07-12672 Non-Argument Calendar.
Citation512 F.3d 1296
PartiesJohn C. VAN VOORHIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

John C. Van Voorhis, Cape Coral, FL, pro se.

Stephen Mark Todd, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

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

Before ANDERSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Van Voorhis, a pilot over 50 years old, appeals pro se the summary judgment entered in favor of the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners and against Van Voorhis's complaint of discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01-.11. Van Voorhis contends that Hillsborough County discriminated against him because of his age when Hillsborough County rejected his application for employment as a helicopter pilot. Van Voorhis presented evidence that the decision-maker for Hillsborough County rejected Van Voorhis's application because the decision-maker, in his own words, "didn't want to hire an old pilot." Because Van Voorhis presented direct evidence of discrimination on the basis of age and evidence of an adverse employment action, the district court erred when it granted summary judgment against Van Voorhis's complaint of age discrimination. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

In April 2002, Hillsborough County posted a job opening for a helicopter pilot in its Mosquito Control Section. Joel Jacobson, manager of the Mosquito Control Section, was in charge of hiring. The open pilot position was one of two such positions in Mosquito Control. Dennis Boone, the chief helicopter pilot for Hillsborough County, was the other pilot. Jacobson was Boone's direct supervisor.

Applicants submitted applications for the pilot position to the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board, which processed the applications, determined which candidates met the qualifications specified by Mosquito Control, and sent a list of qualified candidates to Mosquito Control. One of the requirements was 100 hours of flight experience in agricultural spraying. Between April and October 2002, nine applicants, including Van Voorhis, were qualified by Civil Service for the position. All nine applicants were over the age of forty. Boone testified in his deposition that he reviewed the list of the nine applicants that met the listing requirements and told Jacobson that two of the candidates, Van Voorhis and another individual, already had a spray license and met "all the requirements to just go get in the helicopter and go spray" Van Voorhis's application stated that he had over 5000 hours of spraying experience.

According to Boone, Jacobson reviewed the list of qualified applicants and stated that "he did not want' to interview [any of the applicants] because he didn't want to hire an old pilot." Linda Hangar, whose office was next to Jacobson's office, testified in an affidavit that she also overheard Jacobson comment that he did not want to hire an old pilot. No interviews were conducted during the first recruitment period.

Pamela Knight, who was eventually hired for the pilot position, did not qualify for the position during the first recruitment period because she did not have 100 hours of agricultural spraying or dusting flight time. Knight testified in her deposition that she met with Jacobson in September 2002 and discussed the 100-hour requirement and whether Mosquito Control had a procedure in place through which she could acquire the necessary flight time. Knight testified that Jacobson told her that they were considering removing the requirement of 100 hours of spray experience to expand the applicant pool and that she should monitor the recruitment listings.

In October 2002, Jacobson rewrote the minimum qualifications for the pilot position and instructed Civil Service to remove the first job listing and commence a new recruitment period. On October 21, 2002, the second recruitment period was opened. The new listing eliminated the requirement of 100 hours of flight experience in low-level spraying or dusting. Applicants from the first recruitment period were not notified of the re-listing and were required to re-apply to be considered for the position during the second recruitment period.

On November 5, 2002, Civil Service forwarded to Jacobson the applications of Knight, age 40, and Fred Yocher, age 54 or 56, the two qualified candidates who had submitted applications in response to the second job posting. Van Voorhis submitted an application during the second recruitment period, but he was not certified by Civil Service as a qualified candidate until December 2, 2002. Knight and Yocher were interviewed by Boone, Jacobson, and Rebeckah Sanchez, a Hillsborough County public works employee from a different division, on November 21, 2002. Boone and Sanchez rated the candidates' answers to interview questions. Jacobson was a non-voting interview panelist.

Knight received the higher score from both Boone and Sanchez, was offered the position, and accepted it. The second recruitment period was terminated on December 13, 2002, at the direction of Mosquito Control. Before the second recruitment period was closed, Civil Service forwarded to Mosquito Control a list of nine qualified candidates that included Van Voorhis.

When Knight started her employment with Hillsborough County at Mosquito Control, she was not qualified to fly the helicopter as the pilot in command. Hillsborough County's insurance company required her to log 50 hours of supervised flight time in the helicopter before it would insure her. Knight also received a warning letter from the Federal Aviation Administration for violating a regulation requiring at least 100 hours of spraying flight time before operating a helicopter used for agricultural spraying over a congested area.

Van Voorhis filed amended complaints in state court that alleged age discrimination. Hillsborough County removed the action to federal court and moved for summary judgment. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Hillsborough County. The district court concluded that Van Voorhis had presented no direct evidence of discrimination on the basis of age, and the court concluded that Van Voorhis had failed to present evidence that he had suffered an adverse employment action.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo and construe "all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the nonmovant." Morris v. Emory Clinic, Inc., 402 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting Browning v. Peyton, 918 F.2d 1516, 1520 (11th Cir.1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment should be granted "if 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).

III. DISCUSSION

Our discussion is divided in two parts. We first address the conclusion of the district court that Van Voorhis did not present direct evidence of discrimination. We next address whether Van Voorhis suffered an adverse employment action. We conclude both that Van Voorhis presented direct evidence of discrimination and that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
112 cases
  • Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • August 18, 2009
    ...attitude correlating to the discrimination or retaliation complained of by the employee.'" Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 512 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1086). Direct evidence of discrimination is evidence that "`if believed, pro......
  • Collins v. Compass Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • August 16, 2013
    ...attitude correlating to the discrimination or retaliation complained of by the employee.’ ” Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough County Bd. of County Com'rs., 512 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir.2008) (citing Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1086 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Damon v. Fleming Supe......
  • Schultz v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • June 5, 2020
    ...is in age discrimination cases where statements – such as "[I don't] want to hire any old pilots," Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs , 512 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2008), "[f]ire Early-he is too old," Earley, 907 F.2d at 1081, or "when the position open[s] up, the compa......
  • Calhoun v. EPS Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • August 8, 2014
    ...attitude correlating to the discrimination or retaliation complained of by the employee.’ ” Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 512 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1086 (11th Cir.2004) ). It conclusively shows discri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Proving age discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Age Discrimination Litigation
    • April 28, 2022
    ...313. In a failure to hire or promote case, the analysis should be similar. See Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough County Bd. of County Comm’rs , 512 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2008) (manager’s comment that he did not want to hire “old” pilot and thus would not inter-view highly qualiied applicant, who w......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Age Discrimination Litigation
    • April 28, 2022
    ...evidence, the plainti൵’s age must make a di൵erence in the decision making. See Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough County Bd. of County Comm’rs , 512 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2008) (manager’s comment that he did not want to hire an “old” pilot and thus would not interview highly qualiied applicant, who......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT