Hawkins v. Ceco Corp.

• Decision Date: 15 September 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-7075,88-7075
• Citation: 883 F.2d 977
• Parties: 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1454, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,338 Ernest HAWKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CECO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 977

883 F.2d 977

50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1454,

51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,338

Ernest HAWKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CECO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-7075.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 15, 1989.

Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Nov. 3, 1989.

Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, David J. Middlebrooks, Michael G. Cleveland, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.

Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Ann K. Norton, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before TJOFLAT and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and RYSKAMP ^*, District Judge.

RYSKAMP, District Judge:

Ernest Hawkins filed suit against The Ceco Corporation ("Ceco"), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e, et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, alleging racial discrimination in employment practice. Ceco claimed that Hawkins was fired for refusing to perform his assigned job and for insubordination to his supervisor. Hawkins, who is black, contended this was merely a pretext for racial discrimination. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Hawkins, permanently enjoining Ceco from discriminating against him, and awarding reinstatement, $33,916.69 in back pay plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees yet to be determined. Because the finding that Hawkins was fired because of his race is clearly erroneous, the trial court's ruling is reversed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The employment structure at Ceco

Ceco first hired Hawkins as a helper at its Birmingham plant on February 21, 1983. The plant at that time was split into two departments, the rebar and the form yard. The form yard superintendent was Thomas H. "Junior" Rascoe. Rascoe controlled the operation and made all hiring and firing decisions. He interviewed potential employees and sent those he had decided to hire to the company doctor for a physical examination. With a clean bill of health, the applicant would be officially hired, beginning work at a specific wage group and job title. A start date and the assigned job title were then recorded on the application.

Ceco had five wage groups at its Birmingham plant at this time. The lowest catagory was helper or laborer, an unskilled position. A helper's responsibilities included general manual labor. Three-fourths of the employees under Rascoe's supervision were helpers.

Although hired as a helper, Hawkins did work in the rebar department at some point in time, possibly at higher wage catagory. Because the form yard's workload varied, Ceco laid off Hawkins on three occasions over the next one and one half years but he was rehired at the same position and salary within a few weeks after each layoff.

Nothing in the hiring process indicates that job applicants in the helper catagory were hired to replace a certain individual. Rather, Ceco only filled a vacancy with a new employee if others in that wage group could not absorb the former employee's duties. New employees started at the bottom of the seniority scale.

2. The events leading to dismissal

On July 23, 1984, Hawkins was working the evening shift in the form yard, loading the sandblaster. The sandblaster is a closed room with doors on opposite sides. A conveyor belt carries material into the sandblaster through one set of doors and rollers carry the material from the sandblaster out the other doors. A helper loads material on the conveyor and then off loads the material on the other end after it has been sandblasted.

That evening the conveyor belt leading to the sandblaster broke. Oscar Huntley, Hawkins' immediate supervisor, could not fix the conveyor and directed Hawkins to load the sandblaster by hand. Another employee set a pallet of plates on the conveyor belt using a forklift. Hawkins was to load the plates from the pallet into the sandblaster.

Hawkins was concerned that the plates would topple over, but had been ordered by Rascoe not to operate the forklift. Huntley wanted Hawkins either to load the plates into the sandblaster directly from the conveyor or to use the forklift to move the pallet of plates to the floor. The two argued and Hawkins attempted to get a witness to show that he was not refusing to work. Huntley, who is black, then sent Hawkins home. Another helper, Joel Hogland, moved the pallet of plates from the conveyor to the floor with the forklift and loaded the sandblaster. Joel Hogland is white and he performed what would have been Hawkins' duties that evening. Hawkins claims he never refused to do his job, only that he had safety concerns and had been ordered not to run the forklift.

3. Huntley's report

Huntley wrote a report of the incident and left it for his supervisor, Rascoe. He stated that he sent Hawkins home for refusing to do the job assigned, but the report did not make any recommendation to fire Hawkins. Huntley did not think it was his prerogative to recommend dismissal of any employee. Huntley reported that he had Hogland take over after Hawkins would not load the sandblaster and claimed that, on the way out the main gate, Hawkins promised something bad would happen to him.

The next day, July 24, Rascoe reviewed the report and conferred with Huntley. He decided to terminate Hawkins, citing his refusal to do the job assigned and his insubordination to a supervisor. That evening and during the next few weeks, Greg Hogland, Joel's younger brother, was responsible for Hawkins' duties. Greg Hogland had had received his physical examination on July 23 and his application shows he started on that date. Within two months, Greg Hogland was promoted to shearman. The next employee hired as a helper was Daryl Bennet, a black, who started work on July 25, 1984.

In his deposition, Rascoe felt Hawkins could be dangerous because once, after requesting a new pair of gloves, Hawkins had remained in the office doorway blocking Rascoe's exit. There was also evidence that, in 1984, blacks were the subject of 90% of the disciplinary measures meted out by the company although blacks constituted only 38% of the work force.

Hawkins timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC denied Hawkins' claim but issued a 'right to sue' letter. Hawkins then sued Ceco in the Northern District of Alabama, alleging he was illegally discharged because of his race.

4. The district court's ruling

In a non-jury trial, ¹ the district court found that Huntley's report afforded Rascoe a pretextual basis for firing Hawkins. ² The court determined that Rascoe had a personal dislike and deep-seated resentment of Hawkins stemming from the doorway incident. The court concluded that Rascoe seized every opportunity to criticize Hawkins' performance. The court also found that Ceco had a history of discrimination against black employees.

The court held that Hawkins had proved a prima facie case of discrimination by establishing that he was black, that he was qualified, that he was fired by a white, and that he was replaced by a white. The defendant articulated legitimate reasons for discharging Hawkins, in that he refused to perform his assigned job and was insubordinate to a supervisor. The district court held that Rascoe did not rely on the articulated reasons in good faith; rather, they were merely a pretext for racial discrimination. The court ordered Hawkins reinstated with backpay, but Ceco moved for a stay and timely filed this appeal.

II. THE CONTROLLING LAW

1. The McDonnell-Douglas analysis

In a Title VII claim for illegal termination based on racial discrimination, the plaintiff must prove that defendant acted with discriminatory intent. Clark v Huntsville City Bd. of Educ., 717 F.2d 525, 529 (11th Cir.1983). Because direct evidence of discrimination is seldom available, the Supreme Court developed a three step procedure for analyzing circumstantial evidence. McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The McDonnell-Douglas procedure allows a court to analyze circumstantial evidence by creating inferences of discriminatory intent. A court accords proper weight to the evidence by shifting burdens of proof. The plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant is guilty of intentional discrimination. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).

Under McDonnell-Douglas, a plaintiff is first required to create an inference of discriminatory intent by establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination. If he cannot do so, then the defendant need not present any reason for its action and the court must determine if the plaintiff has met his ultimate burden. But if the plaintiff does present a prima facie case, the defendant may counter the inference of discrimination by articulating some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for rejecting the employee. McDonnell-Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824. If the defendant responds by adequately explaining its rationale, the plaintiff, in order to prevail, must present evidence that defendant's proffered reasons are merely pretexts for discrimination. The burden to establish pretext merges with plaintiff's ultimate burden of proof of intentional discrimination. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095.

By shifting inferences, the court can assess the validity of the articulated rationale for an employee's dismissal, eliminating the most common, non-discriminatory reasons. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253-54, 101 S.Ct. at 1094. The court assumes that employers act with some reason. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978). If all valid reasons are rejected as pretextual, then it is likely that discrimination was the true reason. United States Postal Serv....