Lee v. GTE Florida Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-3380,98-3380
• Citation: 226 F.3d 1249
• Parties: (11th Cir. 2000) ANDREA D. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellee- Cross-Appellant, v. GTE FLORIDA, INC., Defendant-Appellant- Cross-Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1249

226 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2000)

ANDREA D. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellee- Cross-Appellant, v. GTE FLORIDA, INC., Defendant-Appellant- Cross-Appellee.

No. 98-3380

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 13, 2000

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

D. C. Docket No. 95-01544-CV-T-17(B)

Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK^*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant GTE Florida appeals from the district court's denial of its Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiff Andrea Lee's Title VII sex discrimination claim. Lee cross-appeals the district court's reversal of the jury's punitive damages award and its award of only two years of front pay. Because the evidence Lee presented at trial to prove pretext was not legally sufficient to support a jury verdict in her favor, the district court erred in denying GTE's motion for judgment as a matter of law and we reverse. In light of this ruling, the cross appeal is moot.

I.

On September 18, 1995, Lee sued GTE alleging sex discrimination under Title VII and Florida law arising out of a failure to promote, retaliatory termination under Title VII and the ADEA, and a violation of ERISA. After the magistrate judge granted GTE's motion for partial summary judgment, Lee's only remaining cause of action was whether she was denied a promotion to the position of Manager-Real Estate Services because of her sex and/or age.

This matter was tried before a jury in December 1997. Immediately after Lee rested her case, GTE moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 50(a). The court denied the motion. Thereafter, GTE rested without calling any witnesses, again renewing its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The court again denied the motion but observed that Lee's evidence was "paper thin." The jury returned a verdict finding intentional sex discrimination and awarded Lee back pay, including pension benefits and punitive damages. But the jury found for GTE on Lee's ADEA claim.

Soon thereafter, GTE renewed its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, a New Trial, and on April 3, 1998, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The court upheld the jury's verdict on Lee's sex discrimination claim, as well as the award of back pay, including pension benefits. However, it reversed the jury's award of punitive damages. The court entered judgment for Lee in the amount of $216,000. Later, the court added an award for front pay, in the amount of $98,647, and for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $100,000. The total amount awarded to Lee was $414, 647.

II.

The facts of this case are straightforward. Andrea Lee was first hired by GTE as an operator in Tampa, Florida, in June 1970. In December 1970 she was promoted to a facilities clerk position, and in December 1972 she was again promoted to an engineer position in GTE's Real Estate Division in Tampa. Lee's engineering position carried a salary level of "4." In January 1980 Lee was promoted to a senior engineering position in GTE's Real Estate Services at a salary level of "5." Lee held this position until November 6, 1994, when her job was eliminated as a result of a reduction in force.

In the early 1990s GTE implemented a reduction in force plan called Process Reengineering. As a result of the reengineering, many positions were either eliminated or consolidated into other positions. Lee's position of Engineer-Real Estate was eliminated and six other individuals who held the same position in other parts of the country also lost their jobs.

As part of the company reorganization, Tom Shaffer, a member of the Process Reengineering task force, created three new positions with the title of Manager-Real Estate Services. Shaffer divided the country into three equal zones, making one position responsible for the Western U.S., the second position responsible for the Central U.S., and the third position, located in Tampa, responsible for the Eastern U.S.

Employees whose jobs were to be eliminated because of the reengineering process were given an opportunity to apply for other positions within GTE. In March 1994, Lee applied for the Manager-Real Estate Services position that was responsible for the Eastern U.S.¹ In order to fill the Manager-Real Estate Services positions, Shaffer created a Position Questionnaire. The Questionnaire described the experience and qualifications relevant for the position, in descending order of importance: 1) managerial experience; 2) strategic planning experience; 3) a Bachelor's degree in business or engineering; and 4) commercial real estate experience.

Shaffer interviewed Andrea Lee, along with several other candidates, for the Manager-Real Estate Services East position. During Lee's interview, Shaffer told her not to discuss her background and qualifications because he already knew them. According to Lee, Shaffer also expressed concern about any employee making a salary level jump from a level "5" (the level which Lee held) to a level "9" (the new level established for the Manager-Real Estate position). Shaffer said that he had never promoted anyone four salary levels at one time and that he had never promoted someone to a level "9" position with no supervisory experience. Shaffer also told Lee that her real estate experience was a low priority to him since that function was going to be outsourced.

Neither Lee nor her immediate supervisor, Bob Atteberry, who also applied for the position, were selected for the position. Shaffer testified that he ultimately chose Colin Hines because Shaffer believed Hines was more qualified than Lee (and the other candidates).

After Lee was informed that she was not selected for the new position, she complained to Nancy Dinkel, a GTE Employee Relations Manager. GTE commenced an internal investigation, but concluded that there had been no discrimination in the selection process.

As part of the investigatory process, Schaffer was requested to write a letter summarizing the reasons why he selected Hines over Lee. In his letter, Schaffer stated that he chose Hines over Lee because he felt that Hines's background, experience, knowledge, and education gave him an advantage over Lee based on four primary criteria: strategic planning, proven managerial ability, education, and real estate experience. Schaffer acknowledged that Lee had more real estate experience, but opined that Hines possessed stronger qualifications in the three other areas. Schaffer wrote that Hines held a Bachelor's degree, a GTE Associate Technical degree, and an Associate Management degree, while Lee only held a high school degree.

At trial, Lee called numerous witnesses, all of whom testified that she was extremely competent in real estate transactions. None of these witnesses testified that they ever heard Schaffer act or speak in a discriminatory manner.

III.

We review the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying the same standards used by the district court. See Tidwell v. Carter Prods., 135 F.3d 1422, 1425 (11th Cir. 1998). "Those standards require the consideration of `whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'" Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

To establish a prima facie case of Title VII sex discrimination in a promotional decision, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that she is a member of a protected minority; (2) that she was qualified and applied for the promotion; (3) that she was rejected despite these qualifications; and (4) other equally or less qualified employees who are not members of the protected minority were promoted. See Taylor v. Runyon, 175 F.3d 861, 866 (11th Cir. 1999). Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection. See id. If the employer meets this burden of production, the plaintiff must then establish that the defendant's proffered reasons for the employee's rejection were pretextual. See id. at 867.

In a failure to promote case, a plaintiff cannot prove pretext by simply showing that she was better qualified than the individual who received the position that she wanted. A plaintiff must show not merely that the defendant's employment decisions were mistaken but that they were in fact motivated by sex. See Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1339 (11th Cir. 2000). We have explained that "a plaintiff may not establish that an employer's proffered reason is pretextual merely by questioning the wisdom of the employer's reasons, at least not where . . . the reason is one that might motivate a reasonable employer." Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1543 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, sub nom., Combs v. Meadowcraft Co., 522 U.S. 1045, 118 S. Ct. 685, 139 L. Ed. 2d 632 (1998); see also Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Florida, Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, U.S., 120 S.Ct. 1962, 146 L.Ed.2d. 793 (2000) (emphasizing that courts "are not in the business of adjudging whether employment decisions are prudent or fair. Instead our sole concern is whether unlawful discriminatory animus motivates a challenged employment decision."); Deines v. Texas Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Servs., 164 F.3d 277, 281 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that "it is not the function of the jury to scrutinize the employer's judgment as to who is best qualified to fill the position . . . . The single issue for the trier of fact is whether the employer's selection of a particular applicant over the plaintiff was motivated by discrimination .")

...