Cooper v. Southern Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2003
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:00-CV-2231-ODE.
• Citation: 260 F.Supp.2d 1258
• Parties: Cornelius COOPER, Michael Edwards, Charcella Green, Patricia Harris, Sarah Jean Harris, Irene Mccullers, and Carolyn Wilson, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN COMPANY, Georgia Power Company, Southern Company Services, Inc., and Southern Company Energy Solutions, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

260 F.Supp.2d 1258

Cornelius COOPER, Michael Edwards, Charcella Green, Patricia Harris, Sarah Jean Harris, Irene Mccullers, and Carolyn Wilson, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN COMPANY, Georgia Power Company, Southern Company Services, Inc., and Southern Company Energy Solutions, Inc., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:00-CV-2231-ODE.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

March 31, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr., Nancy E. Rafuse, Susan Elisabeth Himmer, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, Atlanta, GA, for Movant.

Michael B. Terry, Joshua F. Thorpe, Steven Rosenwasser, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, Atlanta, GA, J. Keith Givens, Angela Joy Mason, Cochran Cherry Givens Smith & Sistrunk, Dothan, AL, Hezekiah Sistrunk, Jr., Cochran Cherry Givens Smith & Sistrunk, Atlanta, GA, Jock Michael Smith, phv, Cochran Cherry Givens & Smith, Tuskegee, AL, Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., phv, Cochran Cherry Givens & Smith, Los Angeles, CA, Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., phv, The Cochran Firm, Schnieder Kleinick Weitz, Damashek, et al, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

W. Ray Persons, King & Spalding, Richard Gerakitis, Stephen William Riddell, Charles A. Hawkins, Frederick Cobb Dawkins, Ashley Zeiler Hager, Sheldon W. Snipe, Troutman Sanders, Eric Jon Taylor, Walter Christopher Arbery, Kelly D. Ludwick, Hunton & Williams, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge.

This civil matter alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is presently before the court on all Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the individual claims of Plaintiff Michael Edwards. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

I. Facts

The following facts are undisputed except as indicated otherwise. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Georgia Power Company ["GPC"] in 1987.¹ Complaint ¶ 86. He held positions in several different organizations within GPC, and was employed as a Lineman in early 1999 when he reported problems with a work-related back injury. Edwards Dep., Vol. III, at 47-51 & Exhibit 4. Effective on or about March 3, 1999, he was placed on permanent work restrictions by his physician. Id. These restrictions limited his lifting and bending functions, which ultimately precluded him from continuing in the Lineman position. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff alternated between extended absences and light duty work assignments until November, 1999. Id. at 47-51, 61.

During the period from March through November, 1999, and thereafter, a representative from the Workers' Compensation Department at GPC made efforts to find alternate positions for Plaintiff and identified a number of opportunities for him. Id. at 63-64; White Dec. ¶¶ 5-13. One such opportunity was a temporary Cable Locator position, which Plaintiff accepted and occupied beginning on or about November 22, 1999. Edwards Dep., Vol. III, at 61-62. In that assignment, Plaintiff reported to James Weldon, Cable Locating Manager at GPC. Edwards Dep., Vol. I, at 28. Weldon apparently did not advertise the opening but accepted Plaintiff into the position based on White's recommendation. Weldon Dep. 54.

The duties of a Cable Locator generally include locating underground electrical cable at various locations within an assigned region to facilitate engineering, construction, and other types of projects and to avoid potential accidents or outages associated with such projects. Weldon Dec. ¶ 2; Edwards Dep., Vol. II, at 332-33; Edwards Dep., Vol. III, at 158-60 & Exhibit 2. These duties require mapping skills, planning skills, teamwork, and the ability to work without direct supervision. Weldon Dec. ¶ 2; Edwards Dep., Vol. II, at 332-33; Edwards Dep., Vol. III, at 56-59 & Exhibit 2.

Plaintiff's temporary Cable Locator assignment ended on or about April 29, 2000. Edwards Dep., Vol. I, at 18; Edwards Dep., Vol. III, at 61-62. He has been receiving a combination of workers' compensation benefits and long term disability insurance benefits totaling approximately $2,170.00 per month since the end of his assignment in April, 2000. Edwards Dep., Vol. III, at 170-71.

Plaintiff applied for a regular (non-temporary) Cable Locator position in late March or early April, 2000. Complaint ¶ 88; Weldon Dec. ¶ 5-6. The record reveals the following concerning the selection process. The hiring manager for this position was James Weldon, who at the time was Plaintiff's supervisor in the temporary Cable Locator assignment. Weldon Dep. at 53; Weldon Dec. ¶ 5. Weldon testified that 35-40% of the individuals he has hired to fill the Cable Locator position are black. Weldon Dep. 18. Weldon prepared a listing of Cable Locator job duties. He, in conjunction with GPC's human resources department, prepared a job announcement which was posted on GPC's JobNet system. Numerous employees applied. Of those who applied, Weldon chose seven individuals for interviews. Plaintiff Edwards was one of those selected. Weldon had become Edwards' manager on November 22, 1999. However, Weldon did not have day-to-day contact with Plaintiff as the Cable Locator job is by its nature a field position; also, Plaintiff was working out of GPC's Gibbs Road location. Weldon had never given Plaintiff an evaluation.

As the hiring manager for the Cable Locator position, Weldon put together the committee which would interview the applicants. He selected Phyllis Austin, a Senior Region Support Representative (white female) who worked at the Gibbs Road location which was Plaintiff's home base. He also selected Tyre Hester, an Engineering Associate I (white male), and Terry Smith, a Cable Locator (black male).

Prior to the interview date, candidate profiles were prepared for each of those applicants who were to be interviewed. The candidate profile is a form which provides information such as hire date, current job, and other identifying data. It lists the full employment history of the applicant, as well as the in-company selfimprovement courses taken by the applicant. Presumably, each of the interviewers was furnished with the candidate profile before the interview.

Human Resources Representative Danielle James observed the interviews. James Dec. ¶ 3. Before the interviews, Ms. James advised the selection committee about the mechanics of the selection process and instructed the committee members that the candidates' race and other impermissible factors were not to be considered during the selection process. Id. The committee ultimately selected one candidate, Carey Rutledge, for this position. Weldon Dec. ¶¶ 9,12.

Each applicant was interviewed individually. The interview was based on questions contained in a structured interview questionnaire, which had been prepared by Defendants' human resources department. Each interviewer had a copy of the questionnaire. The first question was, "Please tell me about your background and experience for this position." The final question was, "Why do you want this job?" The remaining six questions addressed various attributes deemed important to the job— initiative, customer focus, communication, and safety. All were open-ended questions. For example, one of the "initiative" questions was, "Sometimes daily emergencies keep us from getting our most important work done. What are some ways you have found to stay on track and meet scheduled deadlines?" The "customer focus" question was, "Describe what `meeting the needs of the customer' means to you. Tell me about a time when you met the needs of a customer." The structured interview questionnaire contained spaces for each interviewer to score the applicant's response to questions 2 through 7, the low score for each answer being 0 and the top score being 3. Each of the interviewers made notes in spaces provided on the questionnaire, presumably while the applicant was talking, during the respective interviews. The forms pertaining to Plaintiff are in the record. See Weldon Dep. Exhs. 7-11. The record does not clarify exactly when the interviewers scored the responses—whether at the conclusion of each interview, or at a later time.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not questioned the job-relatedness of the questions asked during the interview.

Following the interviews, the four committee members were asked to place the seven applicants in rank order from 1 to 7 (1 being the top ranked applicant) based on "gut feel" only. According to the interview scoring summary, this is an optional step in the process. Weldon, Hester and Smith ranked Plaintiff as a "1". Smith also gave a "1" ranking to applicant Jim Brown. Ms. Austin ranked Edwards as "4".

Applicant Jim Brown (white male) received rankings of 3, 1, 2 and 1, putting him in second place (if the number of "1" ratings is controlling) or tied for first place (if the aggregate rankings are deemed most relevant: Plaintiff 1 + 4 + 1 + 1=7; Brown 3 + 1 + 2 + 1=7). Cary Rutledge, a white male applicant, was in next place with rankings of 2, 2, 3 and 5.

The record does not clarify at what point the interviewers' scores of the answers to the structured questions were tallied. The tally was done by the facilitator, Danielle James, based on the scores reflected in the structured interview questionnaire. With 3 being the maximum points awardable for each answer, and with four individuals scoring each answer, the maximum points awardable for a particular answer to a question was 12. Tallies were done for all seven of the applicants who were interviewed. The scores ranged from 69 points for Jim Brown, to a low of 55 points. Edwards' point count was 61 and the point count for Carey Rutledge was 62.5.

The committee discussed the merits or demerits of each of the top 3 applicants— Brown, Plaintiff, and Rutledge. It is undisputed that at this point, Ms. Austin stated that she had often seen Plaintiff on the...