Coutu v. Martin County Bd. of County Com'rs
| Decision Date | 16 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-4471,93-4471 |
| Parties | 67 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 414, 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,536 D. Tammy COUTU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Robert H. Oldland, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
D. Tammy Coutu, pro se.
George P. Roberts, Jr., Tamara A. McNierney, Roberts & Reynolds, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before KRAVITCH and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff D. Tammy Coutu, a Mexican-American, brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e-2(a)(1) and 2000e-3(a), against her former employer, Martin County Board of County Commissioners, and Robert Oldland, the County Administrator. Coutu contends that defendants violated Title VII by terminating her employment and by declining to rehire her when another position with the County became available. Specifically, she alleges that defendants (1) discriminated against her because of her national origin and (2) retaliated against her because she filed a grievance against Oldland and protested allegedly unlawful discriminatory practices during her tenure with the County.
By stipulation of the parties, the case was tried before a jury. At the close of Coutu's case, the district court granted a directed verdict in favor of Oldland, 1 but reserved ruling on defendants' motion for a directed verdict in favor of the Board. After hearing all of the evidence presented by the parties the district court found that the Board had demonstrated that Coutu was terminated as part of a reduction in force necessitated by County budgetary constraints and that Coutu had failed to prove that this legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual. Accordingly, the district court granted a directed verdict in favor of the Board. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Prior to 1983, Martin County did not have a centralized personnel section; each department did its own advertising, recruitment, and hiring of personnel. In early 1983, Robert Oldland, the County Administrator, reorganized all of the departments in the County and centralized the personnel responsibilities within his office. To handle these centralized personnel responsibilities, he requested and received Board approval for two new positions: a Personnel Assistant to the County Administrator, and a secretary. Oldland initially assigned the centralized personnel responsibilities to Sue Whittle, the Executive Assistant to the County Administrator, pending hiring for the two new positions. 2 In November 1983, Oldland hired the plaintiff, Tammy Coutu, to fill the Personnel Assistant position, and the centralized personnel responsibilities passed to her. 3
The new secretarial position was also filled, so that Coutu had one secretary to help her with the personnel responsibilities. 4 These responsibilities included establishing centralized personnel records; recruiting, screening, and testing potential employees; developing employee evaluation procedures, disciplinary programs, and grievance procedures; 5 revising the personnel manual; preparing a job description manual; 6 and implementing equal employment opportunity and affirmative action compliance programs. 7 As Personnel Assistant, Coutu reported directly to Oldland. 8
Coutu did not have a good working relationship with either Oldland or Whittle, Oldland's executive assistant. 9 Several factors appear to have contributed to these poor working relationships. First, Coutu and Oldland had differing views of Coutu's job responsibilities and priorities. Coutu repeatedly testified that she was hired to "stop discrimination." 10 She saw herself as an employee advocate whose job it was to root out problems. Oldland believed that Coutu devoted too much time to her role as an employee advocate. 11 In his opinion, Coutu's number one job priority was the revision of the personnel manual, 12 a job that Coutu never completed. 13 Second, Coutu felt that she was overworked and that she should have been provided with additional assistance to perform her duties. 14 Third, Oldland was ill during his tenure with the County. 15 According to Coutu, his illness caused him to have mood swings; sometimes he was jolly and sometimes he was hostile. 16 Coutu testified that when Oldland was in a good mood, he "was good to work with" 17 and Coutu "was his best buddy." 18 Coutu had problems working with Oldland, however, when he was in a bad mood. She testified that she was not the only one who had such problems: "He had the mood swings, and I'm sure Mrs. Whittle had the same problem with him." 19
Oldland gave Coutu two performance reviews, one in early 1985 and one in early 1986. 20 In the 1985 review, Oldland commented that Coutu needed to improve relationships with her co-workers and with supervisory personnel with whom she worked; that she needed to improve the manner in which she prioritized tasks, as she spent too much time on employee advocacy and insufficient time on required management tasks; and that she needed to complete tasks on schedule. 21 Coutu did not agree with any of the criticisms of her work contained in the evaluation; 22 she also disagreed with the performance rating Oldland gave her, and she wrote a three-page memorandum expressing her dissatisfaction with the rating. 23
In Coutu's 1986 performance review, Oldland commented that Coutu was unable to accept constructive criticism; that, while she had improved her work scheduling, she still needed to prioritize her tasks and timely complete projects, particularly the personnel manual; and that she needed to develop personnel systems to reduce paper flow. 24 Again, Coutu did not agree with the criticisms in the performance review; she viewed them as "minor little things and I would have been able to take care of them properly and efficiently if I had had the requested additional help that I tremendously needed." 25 Coutu also disagreed with the rating she received in the 1986 evaluation. After Oldland declined to change this rating, Coutu filed a grievance. 26
In her written grievance, Coutu contended that she was "justified in requesting a six percent merit increase plus the five percent salary increase requested on 1/8/86 for additional duties and responsibilities." 27 She also alleged racial discrimination, although she gave no specific examples of discrimination. 28
In accordance with County policy, a grievance hearing was held on July 16, 1986. 29 Notwithstanding Coutu's written allegations, Coutu's lawyer specifically declared at the beginning of the hearing that the grievance did not involve racial discrimination. Indeed, Coutu presented no evidence of racial discrimination at the hearing; she contended only that she worked hard and deserved a better rating than Oldland had given her. 30 The five-member grievance committee denied Coutu's grievance, by a vote of four to one. 31
During her trial testimony, Coutu repeatedly complained about numerous alleged irregularities in her grievance hearing. For example, she complained that the administration hand-picked her grievance committee, rather than drawing names from a hat, as was the usual practice. She also complained that her grievance hearing was held in the committee chambers, rather than in a back conference room, as was the usual practice. 32 Coutu's testimony eventually revealed that the irregularities about which she complained were due to her unique position as Personnel Assistant and were entirely justified. County policy provided that Coutu, as Personnel Assistant, would sit as the chairperson of any grievance committee, and that the committee would consist of Coutu, another member of the administration, and three salaried employees. The policy did not specify how the three salaried employees were to be chosen, or where the grievance hearing was to take place. 33 Because Coutu obviously could not serve as chairperson of her own grievance committee, Oldland selected another chairperson, who opted to appoint the members of the committee, rather than to draw names from a hat as Coutu did. This chairperson expressed his willingness to reconsider any appointment upon objection. 34 Coutu objected to one person who was appointed to the committee; consequently, that person was replaced by a person to whom Coutu did not object, 35 and Coutu did not object to the other three appointments to the committee. 36 As to the location of the hearing, Coutu admitted that the back conference room that she used when she served as chairperson held only 12 people, that members of the press and public were present at her grievance hearing, and that the large number of people present was "a good logical reason" to hold the hearing in the committee chambers. 37
In the summer of 1986, contemporaneous with Coutu's grievance proceedings, the County was suffering budgetary constraints; it had lost approximately $600,000.00 in revenue for 1986 due to the discontinuation of federal revenue sharing. In an effort to compensate for the revenue loss, the County placed a freeze on hiring and did not buy any new equipment or expand services. 38 In addition, Oldland formulated a proposal for reorganizing certain County jobs. He suggested eliminating the position of Personnel Assistant to the County Administrator and the position of General and Public Service Director by merging these two positions into the existing Assistant County Administrator position. The merger of these three positions would save the County $56,000.00 a year. Oldland also suggested eliminating an electrician position and a carpenter position. The Board approved Oldland's proposed changes. 39 Thus, Coutu's position as Personnel Assistant to the County Administrator was eliminated due to budgetary constraints, and she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holston v. Sports Authority, Inc., No. CIV.A.1:98CV3678JEC.
...1325, 1328 (5th Cir.1980)); see also Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 141 F.3d 1453, 1454 (11th Cir.1998); Coutu v. Martin County Bd. of Comm'rs, 47 F.3d 1068, 1074 (11th Cir.1995); Weaver, 922 F.2d at 1524; Simmons, 757 F.2d at 1189. It is irrelevant to the retaliation claim whether the p......
-
White v. Wells Fargo Guard Services
...may establish the fourth element of the prima facie case by showing that the position remained open. Coutu v. Martin County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 47 F.3d 1068, 1073 (11th Cir.1995). In alleging sex discrimination, Ms. White is within a protected group as defined by Title VII. Regarding the......
-
Cross v. Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc.
...that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely unrelated.'" County v. Martin County Board of County Commissioners, 47 F.3d 1068, 1074 (11th Cir.1995) (quoting EEOC v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 988 F.2d 1564, 1571-72 (11th Cir.1993)). Defendant concedes th......
-
Gaston v. Home Depot Usa, Inc.
...or satisfy his burden when responding to a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Coutu v. Martin Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 47 F.3d 1068, 1073-74 (11th Cir.1995). 2. Prima Facie As noted above, to establish a discriminatory treatment/discharge claim through circumstantial evidence,......
-
Retaliation
...and adverse employment decision is too long an interval for a inding of causation). Coutu v. Martin County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 47 F.3d 1068 (11th Cir. 1995) (judgment for employer on retaliation claim; “Had [defendants] wished to terminate [plainti൵] because of her e൵orts to ‘stop disc......
-
Retaliation
...and adverse employment decision is too long an interval for a inding of causation). Coutu v. Martin County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 47 F.3d 1068 (11th Cir. 1995) (judgment for employer on retaliation claim; “Had [defendants] wished 26-17 RETALIATION §26:2 to terminate [plaintiff] because of......
-
Retaliation
...and adverse employment decision is too long an interval for a finding of causation). • Coutu v. Martin County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 47 F.3d 1068 (11th Cir. 1995) (judgment for employer on retaliation claim; “Had [defendants] wished §26:2 Texas employmenT law 26-280 to terminate [plaintiff]......
-
Discovery
...on race, sex, or national origin, is not an unlawful employment practice under Title VII.’”); Coutu v. Martin Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 47 F.3d 1068, 1074 (11th Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted) (same). In an effort to enable the plaintiff to better understand this concept, explain w......