Marafino v. St. Louis County Circuit Court, 82-1510
| Citation | 707 F.2d 1005 |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1510,82-1510 |
| Parties | 31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1536, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,640 Kathleen MARAFINO, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, and St. Louis County, Missouri, Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Shulamith Simon, Mark G. Arnold, Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Elson & Cornfeld, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee, St. Louis County Circuit Court.
Mary Anne Sedey, Chackes, Hoare & Sedey, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Before BRIGHT, ARNOLD and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
Kathleen Marafino brought suit against the St. Louis County Circuit Court and St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging that the circuit court violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e et seq., by failing to hire her for a staff attorney position because of her impending need for a leave of absence due to pregnancy. The district court 1 found in favor of the circuit court, 537 F.Supp. 206, and Marafino appeals. We conclude that the district court's finding that Marafino failed to demonstrate pretext is not clearly erroneous and accordingly affirm.
In January or February of 1977, Marafino learned she was pregnant. In April, she interviewed for a position as staff attorney in the St. Louis County Circuit Court's Juvenile Division. Marafino did not mention her pregnancy at that time. After interviewing all prospective applicants, the head of the Juvenile Division's Legal Department Corinne Richardson, called Marafino and advised her that she was the best qualified candidate for the position. Marafino then informed Richardson that she expected to deliver a child in late September and would require a four-to-eight week leave of absence following delivery.
Shortly thereafter, Marafino met with Judge Edwards of the Juvenile Court. Judge Edwards knew of Marafino's pregnancy at the time. Richardson told Edwards, however, that in her estimation, the department could handle Marafino's leave of absence were she hired. Upon Richardson's recommendation, Judge Edwards forwarded Marafino's name to the court en banc for consideration.
On May 13, 1977, Marafino met with the judges of the St. Louis Circuit Court. Following the meeting, several of the judges expressed reservations to Judge Edwards about hiring an employee who would require a leave of absence so soon after beginning work. After these conversations, Judge Edwards reconsidered his original decision to recommend Marafino, and concluded that it had been a mistake. He subsequently withdrew his recommendation that Marafino be appointed staff attorney. The circuit court later hired Roger Keene to fill the position for which Marafino had been recommended, and he began to work on July 1, 1977.
On August 11, 1977, Marafino filed a charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Upon receiving her right to sue letter, Marafino filed suit against the circuit court and St. Louis County under Title VII. Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the circuit court. This appeal followed.
The central issue on appeal is whether Marafino met her burden of showing that the employer's asserted business reason for failing to hire her was a pretext for sex discrimination. 2 The district court correctly found that Marafino established a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). She is a member of a protected group under Title VII. She applied for and was qualified for the staff attorney position; she was rejected and, thereafter, the employer continued to seek other applicants for the position. The circuit court also met its burden of articulating a nondiscriminatory reason for denying Marafino employment. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-55, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1094, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Judge Edwards explained that he believed it would be a bad business practice to hire an employee who planned to take a leave of absence within a few months of beginning work, because he was concerned about the harmful effect of an interruption in service during the employee's training period. The burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrester v. White
...refusal to hire because staff attorney does not deal with judge in latter's judicial capacity), aff'd on other grounds, 707 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir.1983); Pruitt v. Kimbrough, 536 F.Supp. 764 (N.D.Ind.1982) (state judge immune from damages for dismissal of probation officer), aff'd mem., 705 F.2......
-
McMillan v. Svetanoff
...judge for failure to hire in Marafino v. St. Louis County Circuit Court, 537 F.Supp. 206 (E.D.Mo.1982), affirmed on other grounds, 707 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir.1983). Juvenile staff attorneys' duties included representing and advising juvenile officers, filing petitions, appearing in court, and c......
-
Gupta v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa.
...alleged in Plaintiff's complaint. By contrast, in Marafino v. St. Louis Cnty. Cir. Ct., 537 F.Supp. 206, 211 (E.D.Mo.1982), aff'd 707 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir.1983), the court held that a “staff attorney” on the Juvenile Court, headed by an elected Circuit Court Judge, did not meet the “personal ......
-
Bostick v. Rappleyea
...of Albuquerque, 690 F.2d 796 (10th Cir.1982); Marafino v. St. Louis County Circuit Court, 537 F.Supp. 206 (E.D.Mo.1982), aff'd, 707 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir.1983). Under Title VII, immunity concerns are accommodated through the exclusion of certain key legislative employees from the term "employe......
-
Pregnant employees, working mothers and the workplace - legislation, social change and where we are today.
...employees; it does not create substantive rights to preferential treatment."). (74) See, e.g., Marafino v. St. Louis County Circuit Ct., 707 F.2d 1005, 1006-07 (8th Cir. (75) Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136, 143 (1977) (citing Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 (1971)); Ti......