Olson v. Philco-Ford

Citation531 F.2d 474
Decision Date27 February 1976
Docket NumberPHILCO-FOR,C,No. 75--1208,75--1208
Parties12 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 426, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,730 Betty J. OLSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v.ontractor for Guthrie Job Corps Center for Women, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

Sylvia Marks-Barnett, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Stephen Jones, Enid, Okl., with her on the brief), for petitioner-appellant.

L. E. Stringer, Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent-appellee.

Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

This is a sex discrimination case charging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e--2(a)(1). The judgment of the district court was for the employer. We affirm.

Petitioner-appellant, Betty Olson, was employed by respondent-appellee Philco-Ford, a contractor for Guthrie Job Corps Center for Women. Mrs. Olson was a 'Senior Instructor with a Level 6 classification.' A vacancy occurred in the position of 'Coordinator of General Education'. It carried a higher classification but the record is not clear whether it was Level 8 or Level 9. Mrs. Olson learned of the vacancy through word of mouth. The Company did not post notices of position vacancies. She and three men sought the position. The Company's Associate Director made the recommendation for appointment to fill the vacancy and the final decision was made by the Center Director. The Associate Director interviewed Mrs. Olson. In accordance with Company policy, no record was made of that interview. About August 1, 1969, a male, Karl Husmann, was chosen for the position. Mrs. Olson complained of sex discrimination to the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission and to the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. After satisfying the statutory requirements, she brought this suit. The district court summarily dismissed and she appealed. We reversed on procedural grounds. See our No. 74--1041--Olson v. Philco-Ford. On remand the Court heard the evidence presented by Mrs. Olson and, after she had rested her case, sustained a motion to dismiss.

Mrs. Olson and Mr. Husmann started to work for the Company at the same time and in the same position. They were promoted to a higher position at the same time. The Company stated its stand with regard to the selection of Husmann thus:

'The selection was made on the basis of the person at the Guthrie Job Corps Center whom it was felt could best perform the job to be filled. All available information was considered. Some recommendations were received and considered. Among the factors influencing the selection of Mr. Husmann were his apparent leadership ability, apparent ability at public relations and his demonstrated relationship with other staff members.'

The trial court found:

'Defendant's failure to promote her (Mrs. Olson) was not on the basis of discrimination because of sex.'

Counsel for Mrs. Olson attack the findings of the trial court saying that they do not satisfy the requirements of Rules 41(b) and 52(a), F.R.Civ.P., and the decisions thereunder. Although the findings are not models of judicial compliance with the mentioned rules, we see no need to explore the nebulous differences between findings of fact or ultimate fact and conclusions of law. We have a short record consisting of the petitioner's testimony, the Company's answers to interrogatories, and various documents. There is no question of credibility. The clearly erroneous standard determines the validity of the findings. In applying that standard the test is whether the appellate court is left 'with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 1576, 23 L.Ed.2d 129. The court of appeal does not decide factual issues de novo. Ibid.

In Woods v. North American Rockwell Corporation, 10 Cir., 480 F.2d 644, a Title VII case, we pointed out the difference between (1) a dismissal at the end of plaintiff's evidence in a court trial and (2) the grant of directed verdict at the conclusion of a jury trial. In situation (1), which we have here, the question for the appellate court is whether the findings are clearly erroneous. Ibid. at 645--646.

Mrs. Olson argues that she made a prima facie case and that it was error to dismiss at the conclusion of her evidence. In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, a Title VII rehiring case, the Court considered the question of a prima facie case, and said that one may be made by showing that applicant (1) belongs to a minority, (2) he applied and was qualified for a job for which employer was seeking applicants, (3) he was rejected despite his qualifications, and (4) after his rejection the employer continued to seek applicants. Ibid. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. In so holding the Court recognized that facts in Title VII cases vary and that the proof necessary in one case is not necessarily applicable to another. Ibid. at n. 13, 93 S.Ct. 1817.

Mrs. Olson was a qualified female applicant and was rejected. After the employment of Husmann the Company did not seek other applicants. Mrs. Olson and Husmann started to work at the same time and received salary increases at the same times. They had the same collegiate degrees. Mrs. Olson says that she was more qualified because she had studied for, but not obtained, a Ph.D. degree, because she had more years of teaching experience than Husmann, and because she had engaged in community activities requiring administrative ability whereas Husmann had not. The company does not dispute these claims. Nothing in the record shows that Husmann was not qualified or that the reasons for his selection were without basis.

Discrimination, she argues, may be inferred from the lack of posting of the position, the failure to provide a formal interview, and the selection of Husmann by two men, one of whom would have been her supervisor if she had been selected. So far as posting and interviewing is concerned there is nothing to show that in carrying on these practices the company engaged in any discrimination because of sex. Indeed, Mrs. Olson knew of the opening and was afforded an interview. Standing alone, selection by two males, one of whom would be her supervisor, will not sustain a reasonable inference of discrimination.

Further argument is that the reasons assigned by the Company for Husmann's selection were subjective and a pretext. These reasons were ability in leadership and public relations and 'demonstrated relationship with other staff members.' Mrs. Olson's answers are that she was better qualified. This in turn is a subjective conclusion.

In support of her claim of pretext Mrs. Olson presents the Company's employment statistics. Such statistics 'may be helpful to a determination of whether * * * (employer's action) conformed to a general pattern of discrimination.' McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 805, 93 S.Ct. at 1825. We have said that in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Ste. Marie v. Eastern R. Ass'n, 75 Civ. 4736 (RLC).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 16, 1978
    ...of a qualified man over a qualified woman for a single opening gender based discrimination under the Act. See e. g., Olson v. Philco-Ford, 531 F.2d 474, 478 (10th Cir. 1976). Where, however, a permanent pattern of such selection occurs, where competency or capacity distinctions inhere "in t......
  • E.E.O.C. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 11, 1983
    ...v. W.T. Grant Co., 518 F.2d 543, 549 (4th Cir.1975). 13 Robinson v. City of Dallas, 514 F.2d 1271 (5th Cir.1975). 14 Olson v. Philco-Ford, 531 F.2d 474 (10th Cir.1976). 15 Keyes v. Lenoir-Rhyne College, 552 F.2d 579 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 904, 98 S.Ct. 300, 54 L.Ed.2d 16 For......
  • Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 17, 2018
  • Harris v. Marsh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • December 28, 1987
    ... ... See, e.g., Olson v. Philco-Ford, 531 F.2d 474 (10th Cir.1976). See also Mendez, Presumptions of Discriminatory Motive in Title VII Disparate Treatment Cases, 30 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Theories of liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases The substantive law
    • May 6, 2022
    ...failure to promote where another female was promoted to the position for which plainti൵ was rejected); Olson v. Philco-Ford , 531 F.2d 474 (10th Cir. 1976) (plainti൵ failed to state prima facie case because fourth McDonnell Douglas Corp. element was not satisied when qualiied male was promo......

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