Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-3401,84-3401
• Citation: 767 F.2d 771
• Parties: 39 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1656, 38 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,526 Andrew L. HILL, Roosevelt Coleman, Jr., Joe L. Lock, Walter J. Jones and Freddie Lee, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 771

767 F.2d 771

39 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1656,

38 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,526

Andrew L. HILL, Roosevelt Coleman, Jr., Joe L. Lock, Walter J. Jones and Freddie Lee Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

No. 84-3401.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 2, 1985.

Mark F. Kelly, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees.

John M. Breckenridge, Jr., Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellee-cross-appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before TJOFLAT and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS ^*, Senior Circuit Judge.

NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge:

Appellants Hill, Coleman, Lock, Jones, and Lee (appellants or employees) brought this suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e, et seq., alleging that Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company (Seaboard) discriminated against appellants, black employees of Seaboard, by refusing to promote them to supervisory positions because of their race. The employees based their claims on both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. The district court, 573 F.Supp. 1079, dismissed appellants' disparate impact claim following the close of their case, but ultimately held that intentional discrimination under the disparate treatment theory had been proven. The court apparently supposed that only one of appellants would have been promoted absent discrimination, but it could not tell which one, so it made a very limited award of money and divided it five ways. The employees appeal claiming the court erred by dismissing the disparate impact claim, and abused its discretion by providing only limited remedial relief and less than the requested attorney's fees. Seaboard primarily cross-appeals from the court's judgment of liability based on disparate treatment.

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We reverse and remand the dismissal of the disparate impact claim. Because we find that the court's finding regarding the employees' qualifications are conflicting, illogical, and thus ambiguous, we remand the judgment on disparate treatment for further consideration. Consequently, we also remand for further consideration of the court's calculation of attorney's fees.

I

The facts critical to this court's resolution of the issues on appeal are few. Appellants are journeymen railroad carmen in the Car Department of Seaboard's Tampa, Florida, Division. The 304 journeymen in the department are supervised by carmen/foremen; these foremen are selected by the master mechanic. The selection process is an informal one as employees are never given notice that vacancies exist and the subjective promotion criteria are known, if at all, only to the white master mechanic and the all-white supervisory cadre which assists the master mechanic in the promotion decision. According to the master mechanic, the informal procedures were as follows: when a vacancy occurred in a foreman position, the master mechanic chose for consideration six to eight journeymen from the seniority list. The master mechanic based his choice of candidates on the unwritten recommendation of the departmental supervisors and on personal observations. The personnel files of the "final" candidates were then examined and the "best qualified" person was chosen.

Between January and July 1980, five foreman positions became available; all were filled by white journeymen. After the promotions were effected, appellants were either demoted or furloughed for economic reasons; in contrast, the promoted whites suffered no financial detriment.

II

The district court in this case considered the employees' claims under the disparate treatment theory of discrimination, and the case was fully tried with judgments on liability and relief entered. In an instance such as this, where the disparate treatment claim was fully tried, the appellate court reviewing the district court's judgment should proceed directly to the ultimate question; whether defendant intentionally discriminated against plaintiff. United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1481, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126 (11th Cir.1984). This court will reverse the district court's finding on intentional discrimination only if that finding is clearly erroneous, or is based on clearly erroneous subsidiary findings of fact, or a mistaken view of the law. Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).

While this court reviews the district court's finding of intentional discrimination, consideration of the subsidiary facts in light of the evidentiary framework presented in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1825, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) is useful. A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by proving that he is a member of a protected minority, was qualified and applied for the promotion, was rejected, and other employees who were not members of the protected class were promoted. See, e.g., Crawford v. Western Electric Co., 614 F.2d 1300, 1315 (5th Cir.1980). Defendant, who never has the burden of persuasion, then must articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for denying plaintiff the promotion. While the burden of production is not high, as defendant's admissible evidence need only be sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against plaintiff, in articulating the nondiscriminatory reason, the explanation must be stated with sufficient clarity so that plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Of course, failure to promote a plaintiff because the person actually promoted was more qualified is a nondiscriminatory reason, but the articulation of that reason must include the fact that the decision-maker knew that the promoted individual's qualifications were superior at the time the decision was made. See Eastland v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 704 F.2d 613 (11th Cir.1983). If a nondiscriminatory reason is articulated through admissible evidence, plaintiff must prove that the reason given was merely pretextual. The plaintiff always bears the burden of persuasion.

We consider the court's opinion finding on discrimination in light of the above-mentioned law. The district court, in its order of November 11, 1983, specifically found that plaintiffs had established a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. Particularly the court held that "since all journeymen/carmen were considered for the foreman jobs, the plaintiffs can be said to have been qualified * * *." Although there is evidence in the record that the employees considered themselves qualified, it appears the court relied only on the fact that any carman with four years experience might be considered for promotion. Apparently and understandably the court was uncomfortable with this method of proving qualifications. The court, which cited the correct legal standard as enunciated in Burdine, continued that Seaboard did present a clear reason for failing to promote plaintiffs, but that it did not articulate that reason through sufficient evidence. Thus, it appears that the court held that defendant failed to meet its burden of production, and the court entered a finding of intentional discrimination. Reviewing these findings of the district court in its order, it appears that the court, in considering the establishment of the prima facie case and defendant's burden of production, found that the employees were qualified, and that defendant did not articulate that those promoted instead were promoted because they were more qualified or that specific subjective qualifications were in existence which plaintiffs did not possess. But it appears the district court ultimately presumed rather than really found that the employees were qualified.

The district court on March 22, 1984, entered a second order on the relief to be granted. In that order, the court found...