Cherry v. Ritenour School Dist.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-1643.,03-1643. |
| Citation | 361 F.3d 474 |
| Parties | Lanita CHERRY, Appellant, v. RITENOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John J. Allan, argued, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Thomas A. Mickes, argued, Chesterfield, MO (Paul N. Rechenberg, Chesterfield, MO, on the brief), for appellee.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, BEAM, Circuit Judges.
Lanita Cherry appeals from the district court's1 grant of summary judgment in favor of Ritenour School District on Cherry's claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The district court held that Cherry failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and, furthermore, that Cherry did not prove that the proffered reason for her contract nonrenewal was a pretext for intentional race discrimination. We affirm the decision of the district court.
We recite the facts in the light most favorable to Cherry and draw all justifiable inferences in her favor. Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733 (8th Cir.2003).
The School District employed Cherry, an African American, as a counselor during the 1999-2000 school year and most of the 2000-2001 school year. During the 2000-2001 school year, Assistant Principal McKinley and Principal Wildhaber counseled Cherry on several occasions concerning various aspects of her job performance. These counseling sessions began in October 2000 when Assistant Principal McKinley counseled Cherry about completing students' special education referrals. Following that meeting, Principal Wildhaber shared concerns with Cherry including Cherry's practice of keeping her door closed, her unwillingness to assist during after-school hours, Cherry's failure to use her computer for counselor functions, her sub-par performance in relation to what Principal Wildhaber had previously experienced with other counselors, and complaints from other staff members about Cherry's performance.
On December 4, 2000, Cherry received a Formative Data Form, which cited Cherry's lack of organization regarding the special education program and concerns about her lack of availability. Then on December 5, 2000, Cherry received a Professional Improvement Plan, which directed her to better organize and coordinate special education services. Principal Wildhaber personally met with Cherry to discuss the concerns raised in these documents.
Principal Wildhaber counseled Cherry again on March 8, 2001, providing Cherry another Formative Data Form and Professional Improvement Plan. This Formative Data Form cited Cherry's lack of coordination and failure to schedule certain meetings, failure to utilize existing computer programs, and failure to work with administration as a team player. The March Professional Improvement Plan was identified as "job threatening," focusing on Cherry's failure to maintain positive interpersonal relationships with school personnel. On March 13, 2001, Principal Wildhaber gave Cherry her performance evaluation, which marked Cherry as "needs improvement" in the area of "organizes and coordinates Special Education services," and as "does not meet expectations" in the area of "demonstrates positive interpersonal relationships with district personnel to accomplish the district's vision, mission, and goals." This evaluation recommended that Cherry's employment not be renewed for the next school year. On March 26, 2001, the School District notified Cherry that the Board of Education voted not to re-employ her for the 2001-2002 school year.
Cherry responded to many of the suggestions and concerns raised throughout the school year by creating flow charts as requested, and by attempting to set up a parent support group. During the 2000-2001 school year, Cherry also contacted Gilbert Balderama, the union representative, about the various counseling sessions and feedback Cherry had received from Assistant Principal McKinley and Principal Wildhaber. Balderama met with Principal Wildhaber and Cherry to review Wildhaber's expectations and concerns. Balderama testified that it seemed as if the administration's expectations of Cherry changed each time Cherry did what the administration asked. Balderama also provided Cherry with the appropriate paperwork to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after Cherry indicated that the administration was discriminating against her.
As evidence of Wildhaber's animosity towards her, Cherry provided a letter from a parent. That letter described an incident when Principal Wildhaber rudely interrupted a meeting between the parent and Cherry, demanded that Cherry monitor recess, and later interrupted a second time, and harshly commented about Cherry's inability to assist. In substance, the parent wrote that she was disappointed with the level of professionalism Principal Wildhaber demonstrated that day. Additionally, Cherry stated in her affidavit that because she is black and both McKinley and Wildhaber are white, she was criticized more harshly and treated differently. As further proof of her demonstrated abilities, Cherry pointed to a March 15, 2001, letter written by a school psychologist, which stated that Cherry was a dedicated counselor who worked very hard to complete her responsibilities.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Trammel v. Simmons First Bank of Searcy, 345 F.3d 611, 613 (8th Cir.2003). "We will uphold the judgment if the evidence, `viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Id. (quoting Philip v. Ford Motor Co., 328 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir.2003)).
As the district court did in this case, we will apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting approach to Cherry's claim. The McDonnell Douglas approach was developed to assess claims that are based on collateral evidence and brought under section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141-42, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).
Under the McDonnell Douglas approach, the plaintiff must establish a factual presumption of intentional discrimination. Id. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097. In Cherry's case, that required evidence (either direct or circumstantial) that: (1) she was a member of a protected group, (2) she was meeting the legitimate expectations of her employer, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) there are facts that permit an inference of discrimination. Taylor v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 251 F.3d 735, 740 (8th Cir.2001). If Cherry satisfies this burden, the School District must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097. The burden on the School District is one of production, not persuasion. Id. If the School District articulates such a reason, the "presumption of intentional discrimination disappears, but [Cherry] can still prove disparate treatment by, for instance, offering [direct or circumstantial] evidence demonstrating that [the School District's] explanation is pretextual." Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, ___ U.S. ___, ___ n. 3, 124 S.Ct. 513, 518 n. 3, 157 L.Ed.2d 357 (2003). "The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff." Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).
Both parties proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. In evaluating Cherry's claim under the McDonnell Douglas approach, the district court held that Cherry (1) was a member of a protected group, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) sufficiently raised an inference of discrimination to satisfy the fourth element of her discrimination claim. B...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenney v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark.
...or distinguishing circumstances." Wierman v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 994 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 361 F.3d 474, 479 (8th Cir. 2004)). Although the standard for determining whether employees are similarly situated is rigorous at the pretext stage, th......
-
Liu v. Basf Corp.
...458 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1253, 127 S.Ct. 1382, 167 L.Ed.2d 161 (2007)(citing Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 361 F.3d 474, 478 (8th Cir.2004)). The first three of these elements are satisfied. Mr. Liu is a member of a protected class, the Chinese national orig......
-
Davidson v. Tyco/Healthcare, Mallinckrodt, Inc.
...and engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating or distinguishing circumstances. Tolen, at 882-83; Cherry v. Ritenour School District, 361 F.3d 474, 479 (8th Cir.2004); Marquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 353 F.3d 1037, 1038 (8th Cir.2004); Gilmore v. AT & T, 319 F.3d 1042, 1046 ......
-
Bevill v. Home Depot U.S.. Inc.
...had informed them about a rule, the existence of which was material to plaintiff's sexual harassment claim); Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 361 F.3d 474, 480 (8th Cir.2004) (holding that statements that are inadmissible hearsay cannot be used to defeat summary judgment). Bevill also argues ......