Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-1150.,No. 03-1151.,03-1150.,03-1151. |
| Citation | 406 F.3d 248 |
| Parties | Virginia ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Sherman T. Lott; Vernelle Payton; Larry Coleman; Ava Hawkins; Curtis Young; Clinton Edwards, Jr.; Francis H. Newman, Jr.; Samuel Quiller; Pamela Wade; Bennie Breeland; Glenn Stephenson; Kenneth L. Brady, Sr.; Clyde Reed; Robin Holman; John L. Naylor; Gwendolyn H. Watts; Alton Barnes; Hayward Ervin; Alana J. Lewis; Debra A. Williams; Jimmie Lee Turner; William Bonaparte, Jr.; Jeffrey A. Myers; Johnny J. Holmes; James Sherman, III; Debbie S.G. Pope; Charles Jones; Annie B. Lottabney; Olivia G. Gavin; Diane J. Crawford; Maxine S. White; Marvin Moore; Bertha Legree; Irmagene Reed; Willar H. Hightower, Jr.; Jeffrey A. Bailey; Constance Dorsey; Ryson Carter; Rhonda M. Tiller; Peggy M. Pollock; Calvin L. Cooks; Gloria J. Collins; Danita L. Myler; Patricia Langford; Delores Beasley; Mary L. Johnson; Moses Myers; Benita Bass; Linchie H. Simmons; Walter Daise; Wanda Y. Smith; Bernard Nora; Carolyn W. Thorpe; Tommy A. Campbell; Donald F. Brooks; Lewis Holston; Deitra M. Pough; Angela Y. Holbrook; Phyllis A. Calhounhurley; Norris V. Rouse; Ursula D. Gay-Furse; Debra Gantt; Elvira Johnson; William R. Hall; Sharon M. Campbell; Winston Butler; Quitman White; Leon Baker; Linda B. Baker; George Bush; Gary L. Carter; Curtis Coker, Jr.; Dianne T. Davis; Sandra Harrison; Charlotte Johnson; Tyrone Davis; Marinda B. Johnson; Johnny King; Delores Martin; Clinton L. McCalla; Douglas Mckenzie; Marilyn Mckie; Marlene L. Moore; James Moton; Goldie S. Randle; Thomas Williams; Joseph Rideaux; William L. Ryans; Dianne S. Scott; Veronica Shaw; Michael Staley; Calvin R. Suber; George A. Taylor; Ellen M. Vessel; Kenneth E. Vinson; Hope Yarborough, For Themselves And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY; The Babcock & Wilcox Savannah River Company, Incorporated; British Nuclear Fuels Limited Savannah River Corporation; Bechtel Savannah River, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees. NAACP Legal Defense And Education Fund, Inc., Amicus Supporting Appellant, Equal Employment Advisory Council; Chamber of Commerce, Amici Supporting Appellee. Virginia Anderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company Defendant-Appellee, and Bechtel Savannah River, Incorporated; The Babcock & Wilcox Savannah River Company, Incorporated; British Nuclear Fuels Limited Savannah River Corporation, Defendants. NAACP Legal Defense And Education Fund, Inc., Amicus Supporting Appellant, Equal Employment Advisory Council; Chamber Of Commerce, Amici Supporting Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Ivan D. Smith, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Glen David Nager, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Julian R. Birnbaum, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C., New York, New York; Ray P. McClain, Ray P. McClain, Attorney, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina; Brown & Mulrain, L.L.P., New York, New York, for Appellant. Deborah A. Sudbury, Douglas M. Towns, Jones Day, Atlanta, Georgia; Shay Dvoretzky, Jones Day, New York, New York; Kenneth E. Young, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Elaine R. Jones, Director, Norman J Chachkin, Robert H. Stroup, NAACP Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc., New York, New York, for Amicus Curiae NAACP. Stephen A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, Ellen Dunham Bryant, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C.; Ann Elizabeth Reesman, Katherine Y.K. Cheung, McGuiness, Norris & Williams, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Council and Chamber.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge WIDENER wrote the opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge GREGORY wrote a separate opinion dissenting in part.
In this Title VII case, plaintiff Virginia Anderson appeals from the district court's orders denying class certification, granting the defendants' motions in limine, and granting summary judgment to the defendants. We generally affirm the district court, but remand for consideration of whether class should be certified with a new lead plaintiff.
Virginia Anderson is a black female employed at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. The Savannah River Site is managed for the Department of Energy by Westinghouse Savannah River Company, LLC (Westinghouse). Bechtel Savannah River, Inc., (Bechtel), Babcox & Wilcox Savannah River Company (B & W), and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Savannah River Corporation (BNFL) also participate in the management of the Savannah River Site pursuant to a contract with the Department of Energy. Each company is a defendant in this action.
In the past, the Savannah River Site produced materials needed for the fabrication of nuclear weapons, but its current mission is focused on environmental cleanup and processing radioactive materials. The Savannah River Site covers 310 square miles in western South Carolina, and, in 1999, over 13,000 employees worked at the sites for the four defendants. Of those employees, 2765 were black.
Virginia Anderson began working at the Savannah River Site in 1978 as a typist in a typing pool. Miss Anderson became a stenographer a year later. She worked as a stenographer in several different departments at the Savannah River Site until 1989. In 1989, Miss Anderson became an administrative secretary in the materials technology group. The transition from stenographer to administrative secretary was a promotion for Miss Anderson, and, as an administrative secretary, she had more responsibilities. As an administrative secretary, Miss Anderson received a salary at the SGL 16 level. Miss Anderson remained with the materials technology group until July of 1998. In August of 1998, she received a promotion to administrative assistant in the university relations group within the chemicals hydrogen technology group. With her promotion, Miss Anderson's salary level increased to SGL 28 SOP. SOP stands for selective overtime positions, and, as a SGL 28 SOP employee, Miss Anderson received additional compensation above her salary if she worked a certain number of hours above her normal working hours. Miss Anderson remained with the university relations group through the time she filed her lawsuit against the defendants.
When she began working at the Savannah River Site, Miss Anderson's higher educational background was limited to an executive secretary diploma from Augusta Tech, which she received in 1977. During her tenure at the Savannah River Site, Miss Anderson pursued further higher education degrees. In 1996, Miss Anderson took her bachelor of science degree in human resources management from Southern Wesleyan University. In June of 1998, Miss Anderson received her masters in business administration from Nova Southeastern University. Miss Anderson's promotion from administrative secretary, with a pay level of SGL 16, to administrative assistant, with a pay level of SGL 28 SOP, came just months after she received her M.B.A.
In the 1990's, the Savannah River Site instituted two programs, one for promotions and one for merit pay increases, that are at issue in this litigation. The first is the Competency Based Posting System, or CBPS. The Competency Based System is an application and promotion system which Savannah River Site employees may use to apply for new positions and promotions. Under the system, exempt or non-exempt employees may apply for any posted position that is available, with a few exceptions. According to the description contained in Westinghouse Savannah River Company 5B Manual, the hiring and promotion process under the Competency Based System is as follows:
1. Open position is submitted to HR for posting.
The hiring manager ensures the position description is complete and correct; adding, and weighing the values of, necessary competencies. HR Compensation establishes the salary grade of the position at or below the salary grade of the previous incumbent (if any). No preferred candidates exist in this system.
2. HR posts the position in ShRINE (sic) for ten working days.
3. The hiring manager establishes an interview panel.
With the HR lead, the hiring manager selects appropriate individuals, based on their job knowledge and 6525 49 4 familiarity with the position, to sit on an interview panel. The panel consists of three members, one of whom must always be the hiring manager.
4. Self-nominating individuals submit their qualifications to HR-Staffing.
Submitted qualifications can include a Personal History form (OSR 27-13) and/or resume.
5. Individuals nominated by others submit their qualifications to HR-Staffing.
With their consent, candidates can be nominated by others. Nominations are not restricted to managers. The hiring manager cannot nominate. Candidates submit a Personal History form (OSR 27-13) or resume and copies of their last three performance appraisals to HR-Staffing.
6. HR confirms that applicants meet posted position requirements.
Eligible candidates are identified based on minimum requirements listed in the position profile.
7. HR-Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) reviews the list of applicants for consistency with corporate and affirmative action planning.
8. HR-Staffing submits eligible applicants to the hiring manager.
9. Within five working days of receiving the material from HR-Staffing the hiring manager selects candidates for interviews.
10. All applicants are informed of the status of their application.
11. Individuals selected for an interview receive a candidate information package regarding the interview...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wahi v. Charleston Area Medical Center
...of his own choosing when the employer based its decision on other grounds. Hux, 451 F.3d at 315 (quoting Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 406 F.3d 248, 271 (4th Cir.2005)). Self-serving opinions, without corroborating objective evidence, are not considered to be significantly pr......
-
Campbell v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...ECF No. 331–3 at 32. Other courts have rejected Dr. Bradley's expert opinions for similar reasons. See Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. , 406 F.3d 248, 262–63 (4th Cir. 2005) (district court did not err in excluding Dr. Bradley's opinions because his statistical analysis did not ......
-
Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.
...properly excluded where expert did not establish the validity using a comparison group as a variable); Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah R. Co., 406 F.3d 248 (4th Cir.2005) (statistician's testimony properly excluded where his comparison group was not sufficiently similar for the statistica......
-
Massenburg v. Innovative Talent Solutions, Inc.
...causes a disparate impact on a protected group. See Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 446 (1982); Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 406 F.3d 248, 265 (4th Cir. 2005); Walls v. City of Petersburg, 895 F.2d 188, 191 (4th Cir. 1990); Rocha v. Coastal Carolina Neuropsychiatric Crisi......
-
The Need for Legislative or Judicial Clarity on the Four-Fifths Rule and How Employers in the Sixth Circuit Can Survive the Ambiguity
...(stating that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Guidelines are not to be afforded great deference). 96 See id. at 292. 97 406 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2005). 98 See id. 99 Isabel v. City of Memphis, 404 F.3d 404, 409 (6th Cir. 2005). 100 635 F.2d 1341 (8th Cir. 1980). 101 Id. at 1347 ......
-
Race and national origin discrimination
...that the facially neutral employment practice had a significantly discriminatory impact.” Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. , 406 F.3d 248, 265 (4th Cir. 2005). Fifth: Plaintiff alleging Title VII disparate impact claim must identify specific practices as being responsible for any......
-
Table of Cases
...Co., 128 F.3d 1267 (8th Cir. 1997), 239 Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211 (1974), 17 Anderson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 406 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2005), 35 Andover Data Serv. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1989), 152 Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., 11......