Smith v. URS Corp.
| Decision Date | 14 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–3645.,13–3645. |
| Citation | 803 F.3d 964 |
| Parties | Melvin SMITH, Plaintiff–Appellant v. URS CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Austin Porter, argued, Little Rock, AR for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Brian A. Vandiver, argued, North Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Before BENTON, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Melvin Smith sued his employer, URS Corporation, alleging retaliation and race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 2000e–2. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of URS. We reverse.
The United States Army hired contractor URS to destroy munitions at a facility in Arkansas. Smith, a black male, applied to work for URS as an instructor/trainer for employees on the Arkansas project. At the time of his application, he understood he was applying for full-time employment on a project of temporary duration.
Smith received a position with URS in November 2007. The parties agree Smith sought the position of “Training Specialist” and a salary of $46,000. URS hired him with the “Working Title” “Training Specialist” and the “Classification Title and Job Code” “Senior Training Specialist (65010).” URS employed a salary scale in which employees were assigned “grades” that corresponded with a salary range. URS hired Smith at grade S5.12 with a salary of $57,668 per year.1
Five months later, URS hired a white applicant named Jesse Griffin. Griffin stated on his written application that he sought the position of “Training Specialist.” Griffin sought a salary of $65,000. A URS human resources employee, Erika Hadley, extended an offer to Griffin as an S5.12 “Training Specialist.” When Griffin commenced employment with URS, however, he was assigned grade S5.13 with the “Working Title” “Sr. Training Specialist,” the “Classification Title and Job Code” “Staff Training Specialist (65010),” and a salary of $65,000 per year.
Two months after URS hired Griffin, it hired a black male applicant, Stanley Ellis (now Dr. Ellis). Ellis had applied for the position of “Training Specialist” seeking a salary of “$58K–65K.” He was hired with the “Working Title” “Training Specialist,” the “Classification Title and Job Code” “Sr. Training Specialist (65010),” and a salary grade of S5.12. Like Smith, Ellis received an annual salary of $57,668.
At the time of hire, Ellis possessed a master's degree and was working towards a Ph.D. Smith and Griffin both possessed bachelor's degrees. Smith, Griffin, and Ellis all had extensive experience.
Four other trainers already worked for URS on the Arkansas project. These other trainers, all men, were hired between 2001 and 2003. Three were white and one was hispanic. All of these earlier-hired trainers held high school diplomas, three of the four had bachelor's degrees, and none of them had a master's degree or a Ph.D. All four of these men held the “Working Title” “Sr. Training Specialist” at grade S5.13 and earned a higher wage than Smith and Ellis. One of the earlier-hired trainers earned less than Griffin.
Written descriptions for the S5.12 and S5.13 positions listed duties in mostly identical terms. For certain duties, the wording differed slightly in ways that seem inconsequential. For example, the written description for the S5.12 position stated, “revise course materials as required due to engineering, regulatory or operational changes and updates,” and the description for the S5.13 position stated, “rewrite and revise course materials as required due to engineering or operational changes and updates.” Differences that may have been consequential were as follows. The S5.12 position description listed, “facilitate vendor- and subcontractor-provided training,” but the S5.13 position had no corresponding duty. And the S5.13 position description listed “train other trainers” and “prepare course schedule” with no corresponding duties for the S5.12 position. The written descriptions for both positions expressly noted that no supervisory duties were required.
Smith admits that at the time URS hired him, he did not suspect racial discrimination—he received the job for which he applied at a rate of pay higher than he requested. He also had no knowledge at the time of hire regarding the titles, salaries, and grades assigned to the earlier-hired trainers. Finally, he did not immediately learn of Ellis's or Griffin's terms of employment.
At some time after URS hired Ellis, Smith became aware that Griffin had been hired at a higher grade and higher rate of pay than both Smith and Ellis. Smith alleges that because URS hired Smith, Griffin, and Ellis all over a period of months, but paid Griffin—the only white man among the three hires—a higher salary than the two black men for doing essentially the same work, racial discrimination reasonably could be inferred as the explanation for the disparity.
Like Smith, Ellis indicated that he did not suspect racial discrimination at the time of his own hire. Ellis stated, however, that the assignment of grades and salaries (and the eventual order of termination for the three men, as described below) looked suspicious and discriminatory in retrospect. When asked about the differences between the S5.12 and S5.13 positions and about the men's actual duties, Ellis stated that Griffin did not perform duties different from Ellis and Smith other than the fact that they taught different classes. Ellis indicated that as the time drew near for closure, Smith and Ellis were teaching full loads whereas Griffin had a light teaching load.
In 2009, Smith complained to Training Manager Ted Howard and asked for a promotion to S5.13. Howard responded that the client (who in this case was the United States Army) “might frown at that.” Smith also complained to a lower-level shift supervisor, Charles Smith (no relation), who told Smith he was doing a good job and should ask Howard for a promotion. Smith relayed Charles Smith's opinion to Howard. Charles Smith later reported that Howard told Charles Smith “not to encourage” Smith. Charles Smith described Howard's response as Howard “jumping all over” him.
Eventually, the URS project in Arkansas matured to a point where URS needed to switch from an ongoing, operational phase of activity towards a final project-termination or shut-down phase. URS asserts the anticipated ending of the project and the switch to a final phase required changes in job duties for URS workers and changes in the courses taught by training staff. URS also began preparations for a series of reductions in force (RIF).
Howard conducted a subjective ranking of the trainers and ranked Smith and Ellis lowest among all seven trainers, thus placing them first in line to be terminated during a RIF. Howard ranked Griffin highest. Smith points out, and Ellis's deposition testimony confirms, that Howard assigned these rankings notwithstanding the fact that Griffin and another trainer had disciplinary reports in their personnel files. Specifically, Griffin was disciplined for distributing purportedly obscene material in a class. The other trainer—who was ranked lower than Griffin but higher than Smith and Ellis—had a disciplinary report for claiming expenses from URS for a training trip but not attending training. Finally, Smith and Ellis testified that Griffin had openly conducted a side-business of selling health drinks from his office space at URS on company time without being disciplined.
URS asserts Howard's subjective ranking reflected, in part, the different trainers' relative abilities to teach courses that would be needed during the shut-down phase of the project. URS, however, points to no evidence tending to suggest how Howard made determinations regarding the trainers' relative abilities. And Ellis testified in his deposition that, at the end of Smith's employment, Ellis and Smith were still teaching courses. Ellis testified that Griffin, on the other hand, would go “a week or two weeks” without teaching a course.2
After employees were made aware of the rankings and the likely order for their terminations in the RIFs, Smith renewed his complaint about his salary and grade assignment. This time, he sent an email to human resources employee Erika Hadley and met with Hadley and another human resources employee. Smith also asked Howard about the ranking process. Howard denied having been responsible for the rankings and told Smith human resources made the decisions. In the present litigation, URS admits Howard conducted the rankings.
Although Smith was scheduled to be the first trainer terminated during an initial RIF, a different trainer voluntarily left employment for other reasons. This departure allowed Smith to continue working. Eventually, during a subsequent round of terminations pursuant to the RIF, URS terminated Smith's employment. Smith was the first trainer involuntarily terminated under the RIF.
Smith sued, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Smith identified the discrepancy in pay and grade between Griffin, Ellis, and Smith as discriminatory treatment in the terms and conditions of employment. He also identified subsequent actions, including the subjective ranking and order of termination, as discriminatory and retaliatory. Finally, he identified his own request for higher pay and his report to Howard of a pay and grade discrepancy as a protected act that triggered retaliation. Smith alleged he should have been paid at a higher rate while employed by URS and should have continued his employment until a later-stage RIF. Specifically, he alleged he should have remained employed at least until the later date at which URS terminated Griffin's employment. The parties conducted discovery, and URS moved for summary judgment.
URS's primary argument addressed the question of whether Smith established a prima facie case. URS argued simply that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v. Performance Contractors, Inc., C17-4062-LTS
...employees are similarly situated is strict; the employees must be ‘similarly situated in all material respects.’ " Smith v. URS Corp. , 803 F.3d 964, 970 (8th Cir. 2015).There are a number of distinguishing facts between the four other employees and Goodman's situation that precludes a find......
-
Garang v. Smithfield Farmland Corp.
...employees are similarly situated is strict; the employees must be ‘similarly situated in all material respects.’ " Smith v. URS Corp. , 803 F.3d 964, 970 (8th Cir. 2015)."Me too" evidence typically involves previous cases in which discrimination was found or admitted. Hayes , 806 F. Supp. 2......
-
Gesinger v. Burwell, CIV 15–1019
...to the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Smith v. URS Corp. , 803 F.3d 964, 968 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Moody v. Vozel , 771 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir. 2014) ). "Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, an......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. JBS United States, LLC
...the protected class were treated differently' or the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination." Smith v. URS Corp., 803 F.3d 964, 969 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fields v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 520 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir. 2008)); see also Lake v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 596 F.3......