Patterson v. Greenwood School Dist. 50, No. 81-2141
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge, and SPROUSE and CHAPMAN; SPROUSE |
| Citation | 696 F.2d 293 |
| Parties | 30 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 825, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,255, 8 Ed. Law Rep. 561 Carolyn F. PATTERSON, Appellee, v. GREENWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 50, a body politic and corporate, and Henry T. Cole, Administrative Superintendent of School District 50, in his official capacity and personally, and the following named persons who are members of the Board of Trustees of Greenwood School District 50, each of them being made defendants in his or her respective official capacity as Board Members and personally; Mr. James McDonald; Mr. L.B. Adams, Jr.; Mr. Harold Lumley, Jr.; Dr. Travis Stevenson; and Mr. Jack McDowell, personally, who was a member of the Board in 1975, Appellants, and Mr. Richard Stowe; Mrs. Audrey Goodwin, and the following named persons who are now members of the board in their official capacity as Board Members, Mrs. Katherine Martin, Mr. Forest Parker, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2141 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1982 |
Page 293
30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,255, 8 Ed. Law Rep. 561
v.
GREENWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 50, a body politic and corporate,
and Henry T. Cole, Administrative Superintendent of School
District 50, in his official capacity and personally, and
the following named persons who are members of the Board of
Trustees of Greenwood School District 50, each of them being
made defendants in his or her respective official capacity
as Board Members and personally; Mr. James McDonald; Mr.
L.B. Adams, Jr.; Mr. Harold Lumley, Jr.; Dr. Travis
Stevenson; and Mr. Jack McDowell, personally, who was a
member of the Board in 1975, Appellants,
and
Mr. Richard Stowe; Mrs. Audrey Goodwin, and the following
named persons who are now members of the board in their
official capacity as Board Members, Mrs. Katherine Martin,
Mr. Forest Parker, Defendants.
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 15, 1982.
David W. Robinson, II, Columbia, S.C. (Robinson, McFadden, Moore & Pope, P.A.,
Page 294
Columbia, S.C., Emory Smith, Washington, D.C., William K. Charles, Jr., Charles & Charles, Greenwood, S.C., on brief), for appellants.James J. Brudney, Washington, D.C. (Michael H. Gottesman, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., Richard Mark Gergel, Medlock & Gergel, Columbia, S.C., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge, and SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
SPROUSE, Circuit Judge:
The Greenwood School District 50 of Greenwood County, South Carolina ("School District"), was the defendant below and is the appellant here. The district court, adopting the findings and conclusions of a magistrate, held that the School District had discriminated against Mrs. Patterson, appellee, on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. The appellee was one of four persons interviewed for a position of assistant principal for one of the intermediate schools located in District 50, and the only male interviewed was selected. The district court awarded Mrs. Patterson back pay and promotion to the next available administrative position as recommended by the magistrate.
The School District appeals from that portion of the district court's judgment awarding appellee back pay and promotion. It continues to deny improper motivation, but does not appeal the ruling finding it guilty of sex discrimination. The appellant contends that assuming it did improperly discriminate on the basis of sex, the discrimination did not result in Mrs. Patterson's failure to be selected as assistant principal because the other females interviewed would have been chosen ahead of her. We agree and reverse that part of the district court's judgment awarding plaintiff promotion and back pay.
The sole male of four persons interviewed for the position of assistant principal at East End Intermediate School was unanimously recommended for appointment by interviewers consisting of five male School District superintendents. The School District Board of Trustees subsequently confirmed the selection. The magistrate concluded that the appellee was sexually discriminated against in the selection process as evinced by the following facts: (1) although the job vacancy announcement limited the position to persons with a Masters Degree in Administration and Supervision, the male applicant did not have such a degree at the time he was hired; (2) applicants were interviewed by an all-male panel; (3) the male applicant hired had significantly less teaching experience than the other applicants; (4) although the usual procedure was to consult...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhoads v. F.D.I.C., Civil No. K-94-1548.
...discrimination case "to the position she would have occupied but for the discrimination." Patterson v. Greenwood School Dist. 50, 696 F.2d 293, 295 (4th Cir.1982). Certainly, if the plaintiff's job ceases to exist so must any back pay liability. Plaintiff's job with SFSA assuredly would hav......
-
Bibbs v. Block, No. 83-1942
...and convincing" proof requirement, see, e.g., Toney, 705 F.2d at 1373 (Tamm, J., concurring); Patterson v. Greenwood School District 50, 696 F.2d 293, 295; Ostroff v. Employment Exchange, Inc., 683 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir.1982), we recently rejected that higher standard of proof in Craik v. ......
-
Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers International Association 28 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 84-1656
...§ 706(g) confirms that a court could not order the union to admit the unqualified individual. Patterson v. Greenwood School District 50, 696 F.2d 293, 295 (CA4 1982); EEOC v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 F.2d 167, 174-177 (CA3 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915, 98 S.Ct. 3145, 57 L.Ed.2d 11......
-
Firefighters Local Union No 1784 v. Stotts Memphis Fire Department v. Stotts, Nos. 82-206
...the absence of discrimination because there was also a lawful justification for the action. See Patterson v. Greenwood School District 50, 696 F.2d 293, 295 (CA4 1982); EEOC v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 F.2d 167, 174-177 (CA3 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915, 98 S.Ct. 3145, 51 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Rhoads v. F.D.I.C., Civil No. K-94-1548.
...discrimination case "to the position she would have occupied but for the discrimination." Patterson v. Greenwood School Dist. 50, 696 F.2d 293, 295 (4th Cir.1982). Certainly, if the plaintiff's job ceases to exist so must any back pay liability. Plaintiff's job with SFSA assuredly would hav......
-
Bibbs v. Block, No. 83-1942
...and convincing" proof requirement, see, e.g., Toney, 705 F.2d at 1373 (Tamm, J., concurring); Patterson v. Greenwood School District 50, 696 F.2d 293, 295; Ostroff v. Employment Exchange, Inc., 683 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir.1982), we recently rejected that higher standard of proof in Craik v. ......
-
Firefighters Local Union No 1784 v. Stotts Memphis Fire Department v. Stotts, Nos. 82-206
...the absence of discrimination because there was also a lawful justification for the action. See Patterson v. Greenwood School District 50, 696 F.2d 293, 295 (CA4 1982); EEOC v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 F.2d 167, 174-177 (CA3 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915, 98 S.Ct. 3145, 51 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers International Association 28 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 84-1656
...§ 706(g) confirms that a court could not order the union to admit the unqualified individual. Patterson v. Greenwood School District 50, 696 F.2d 293, 295 (CA4 1982); EEOC v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 F.2d 167, 174-177 (CA3 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915, 98 S.Ct. 3145, 57 L.Ed.2d 11......