Harris v. Group Health Ass'n, Inc.

Decision Date25 August 1981
Citation213 U.S.App.D.C. 313,662 F.2d 869
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil Action No. 79-0867).

Ellen R. Delate, Washington, D. C., for appellant in No. 79-2544 and for cross-appellee in No. 79-2553.

Stanley J. Brown, Washington, D. C., with whom Stewart S. Manela, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee in No. 79-2544 and for cross-appellant in No. 79-2553.

Before McGOWAN, WILKEY and WALD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY.

WILKEY, Circuit Judge:

In this action plaintiff/appellant Dr. Geraldine E. Harris alleges that she was discharged from her position at Group Health Association, Inc., in Washington, D.C., because of her race (she is black) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 1 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 2 After a full trial the district court awarded judgment to defendant/appellee Group Health Association, Inc. Appellant challenges that judgment on appeal. We affirm the holding of the district court and, in addition, require appellant to pay appellee's costs and attorneys' fees incurred during the appeal.

I. MERITS OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM
A. Background

Appellee Group Health Association, Inc., (GHA) is a non-profit corporation operating as a health maintenance organization to provide prepaid health care to its 100,000 plus members in the Washington metropolitan community. GHA employs some 120 physicians, and as part of its operation has laboratories to provide test results and diagnostic data to these physicians and their patients. Appellant Dr. Harris was hired as Chief of Microbiology for the microbiology laboratory on 25 July 1977. Hired by Dr. Lupovich, GHA's Director of Laboratories, Dr. Harris had impressive credentials. At that time the microbiology lab was in danger of losing its license, and Dr. Lupovich created the position of Chief of Microbiology as part of his effort to improve the organization of the laboratory. The job description for the new position, prepared by Dr. Lupovich before appellant's employment, sets out the performance criteria for the position as follows:

The individual will be evaluated by his/her ability to show a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of test procedures and equipment used, such that their assigned responsibilities and duties are carried out in an informed, accurate, professional manner at the highest level of excellence. The individual will be able to recognize problems, identify the cause, create alternatives, and determine realistic pragmatic solutions. There must be communications at an effective level enabling the translation of facts and ideas to a variety of persons with a variety of backgrounds, both within and outside the laboratory. Quite importantly, is the ability to supervise in an effective, professional, and friendly way those personnel assigned to the section of responsibility. The individual will carry out in an acceptable manner to the Director of Laboratories, all those directives both assigned and unassigned which constituted professional laboratory technology and management at the highest standard of excellence. 3

Soon after Dr. Harris came to work at the laboratory friction developed between her and the other managers and employees because of what was perceived as her inadequate performance. For instance, Johnny L. Manning, the Assistant Director of the Laboratory for Administrative Services, became dissatisfied with Dr. Harris' performance since, according to his testimony, she would arrive late and not amend her employee time card to reflect the reduced hours. Eventually other supervisors expressed concern about the fact that Dr. Harris was permitted to come and go without regard to normal working hours. Mr. Manning, who is black, testified that from the time Dr. Harris started in late July 1977 until February 1978, he had between ten and twenty conversations with Dr. Lupovich about difficulties he was having with Dr. Harris.

Another of Dr. Harris' associates, Chief Medical Technologist Mina Harkins, also had trouble with her. One of Dr. Harris' responsibilities was to visit GHA satellite laboratories. Yet despite repeated requests, Miss Harkins testified, Dr. Harris never went there after her introductory visit. Miss Harkins also noted Dr. Harris' frequent refusals to work weekends, and complaints concerning her lack of knowledge about GHA procedures for ordering supplies.

Mrs. Rose Crook, who was the Supervisor of Microbiology at GHA, testified that she had similar difficulties getting Dr. Harris to perform her duties and to communicate and work cooperatively with the rest of the staff. Mrs. Crook also is a black woman.

There was also testimony at the trial that Dr. Harris had been uncooperative in an incident involving the decontamination of a potentially contaminated area and in her completion of travel vouchers.

By November 1977 Dr. Lupovich, who testified that he had been trying to "bend backwards" 4 to save a potentially valuable person to the laboratory, began to doubt Dr. Harris' capacity for the job for which she had been hired. There had already been several meetings between Dr. Lupovich and Dr. Harris at which the former pointed out the need for improvement in the latter's performance. On 6 February 1978, after preparing Dr. Harris' six-month evaluation, Dr. Lupovich met with her to review her progress at GHA. The purpose of the meeting was to review Dr. Harris' evaluation and her duties, and to set forth a plan for her improvement. At the meeting, several witnesses testified, Dr. Harris was told again to hold regular meetings with the staff, to communicate with Mrs. Crook, and to visit the satellite laboratories. Both in that meeting and in the written evaluation, the record indicates, Dr. Lupovich made it quite clear that Dr. Harris' work had been unsatisfactory and plainly stated that the problems identified would have to be overcome in order for Dr. Harris to continue at her position with GHA.

According to the trial testimony there was, however, no improvement. Indeed, in some respects Dr. Harris' performance became worse. The complaints which Dr. Lupovich received about Dr. Harris continued.

Dr. Lupovich finally decided that Dr. Harris could not remain at GHA. He testified that he called her into his office and, with Mr. Manning present, told her that her affiliation with GHA was not working and asked that she resign. Dr. Lupovich agreed when Dr. Harris requested several days for her to think things over. When she came back, at her request they discussed the reasons for the termination. Dr. Lupovich indicated that she had not carried out her responsibilities, that there had been incompatibility and lack of communication in the laboratory, and that she had not demonstrated leadership in her position as the Chief of Microbiology. Dr. Harris, however, said that she would not resign, and so Dr. Lupovich discharged her. Dr. Lupovich testified that Dr. Harris then said "she was not going to take that ... lying down, and that Group Health would have the worst time it's ever had ...." 5

B. Appellant's Evidence

The evidence which plaintiff presented at trial to show that she had been fired on grounds of race can be summarized briefly as (1) she was black, (2) the discharge rate for blacks at GHA was higher than the discharge rate for whites, and (3) GHA, in failing to render evaluative reports at definite intervals, did not follow its own rules of procedure in Dr. Harris' case. We shall consider each of these three arguments in turn.

Plaintiff argues that it is significant that she was black and that the person first considered to replace her was a white male. 6 But it is not enough to show only that plaintiff is black and, moreover, in this case there are a number of reasons for concluding that the mere fact that plaintiff is black was not the reason for her discharge. Most important, of course, is the fact that there is abundant evidence that the reason for appellant's discharge was her inadequate performance at her position. It is also significant that many of the complaints against Dr. Harris were lodged by people who also happened to be black. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that although it is true that Dr. Harris was fired, she was also hired by the same man who eventually discharged her. This at least raises the question, unanswered by appellant, of why a racially discriminatory organization or individual would have hired her in the first place.

The statistical evidence offered by appellant is similarly unconvincing. It is of course more difficult to prove a pattern of discrimination in a case such as the one at hand, where not only is the job position in question sui generis, but plaintiff was the first to hold it. Appellant argues, however, that discrimination can be deduced from the figures of GHA's hiring and firing of professionals generally. Appellant points to the fact that a higher percentage of blacks than whites has been fired relative to the percentage of blacks and whites hired:

                  PROFESSIONALS HIRED
                      Total  Black
                      -----  -----
                1976    75     10
                1977    91     18
                1978   102     13
                  PROFESSIONALS FIRED
                      Total  Black
                      -----  -----
                1976    2       1
                1977    7       3
                1978    5       2 7
                

We think it clear that these data are "too fragmentary and speculative to support a serious charge in a judicial proceeding." 8

Evaluative reports were, under the rules of procedure of GHA, supposed to be rendered at definite intervals. Appellant argues that this procedure was not followed by Dr. Harris' supervising official, the person who hired her. However, the charge here is racial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Wang v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 25, 2016
    ...in which the manager other than the one responsible for the adverse employment action made the statements); cf. Harris v. Grp. Health Ass'n , 662 F.2d 869, 873 (D.C.Cir.1981) (highlighting how the plaintiff neglected to allege "racial slights or slurs"). And even an "isolated race-based rem......
  • Thompson v. McDonald
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 14, 2016
    ...was “highly subjective” and there was “a significant disparity in the candidates' qualifications”); see also Harris v. Grp. Health Ass'n, Inc. , 662 F.2d 869, 873 (D.C.Cir.1981) (“While it is true that subjective criteria lend themselves to racially discriminatory abuse more readily than do......
  • Animal Welfare Inst. v. Feld Entm't, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 29, 2013
    ...legitimate efforts of those bringing legitimate suits, and draw scarce judicial resources away from these cases.” Harris v. Group Health Ass'n, 662 F.2d 869, 874 (D.C.Cir.1981). In such cases, the Court should exercise its discretion to award fees to a prevailing defendant. Id. FEI argues t......
  • St. John v. Napolitano
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • November 5, 2013
    ...are situations where employment decisions can, must, and should be made on the basis of subjective criteria.”Harris v. Group Health Ass'n, 662 F.2d 869, 873 (D.C.Cir.1981). The instant case is one of those situations and the mere fact that the defendant used a subjective consideration about......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...in frivolous retaliation claim though fees denied in related, nonfrivolous discrimination claim); Harris v. Grp. Health Ass’n Inc., 662 F.2d 869, 874 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (attorney’s fees to defendant appropriate where appellant had no reasonable basis to bring appeal). But see, e.g., Torres-Sa......

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