Pouncy v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

• Citation: 499 F. Supp. 427
• Decision Date: 09 July 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 75-H-1877.
• Parties: Riley D. POUNCY, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

499 F. Supp. 427

Riley D. POUNCY, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 75-H-1877.

United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Houston Division.

July 9, 1980.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gordon R. Cooper, II, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.

Richard R. Brann and Tony P. Rosenstein, Baker & Botts, Houston, Tex., for defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CARL O. BUE, Jr., District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Riley D. Pouncy, a black male, brought this employment discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1978), and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1974), on behalf of himself and all other Blacks who have been discriminated against by the defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. On September 29, 1978, the Court provisionally certified a class consisting of all present and future black employees in the Administrative Section of defendant's Southwestern Home Office in Houston, Texas, plus all former black employees in the Administrative Section at the Southwestern Home Office in Houston who were in defendant's employ on or after October 31, 1973. By order of August 6, 1979, the Court modified the class previously certified to exclude part-time and commissary workers and wage band employees and granted the parties' motion to bifurcate the trial.

At the conclusion of the evidence on liability, the Court requested additional briefing by the parties and took the case under advisement. Pursuant to Rule 52, Fed.R. Civ.P., the Court hereby enters its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law detailing the reasons for its conclusion that plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proving that he or the plaintiff class has been discriminated against by defendant on the basis of race and that as a consequence the defendant should prevail. Because of the multiple legal issues involved as well as the complex statistical and other proof discussed as to each, the case authorities relied upon are examined in the Court's Findings of Fact, rather than set forth separately in the Conclusions of Law.

II. Findings of Fact

A. Discriminatory Treatment

1. Plaintiff Riley D. Pouncy

1. Plaintiff Riley D. Pouncy is a black male citizen of the United States and a resident of Houston, Harris County, Texas.

2. Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America is a duly incorporated organization, authorized to do business within the State of Texas, and is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1978).

3. Plaintiff Pouncy was initially hired by defendant on or about September 27, 1965, as a chauffeur-driver, which is a level 4 position¹ within the office services division in the administrative section of defendant's Southwestern Home Office. Plaintiff's duties as a chauffeur-driver included distribution of incoming mail, preparation of outgoing mail for delivery to the post office, and other miscellaneous functions akin to those of a shipping and receiving clerk.

4. On or about April 15, 1971, plaintiff was transferred to the position of multilith operator, also a level 4 position, with the duplicating section of the office services division. Plaintiff was first assigned to operate a 360 A. B. Dick printer, but within several months he was moved to a 1250 multilith, which is a more complex printing machine. Plaintiff was trained for the operation of these machines by E. J. Wilkins, who was his supervisor in the duplicating section from 1971 to 1975.

5. On May 21, 1973, some two years after plaintiff had commenced working in the duplicating section, one Olga Aschenbeck, a white female, began work in that section as a copyprint operator, which is a level 2 position. Ms. Aschenbeck had previously been employed as a commissary worker in defendant's Southwestern Home Office from March 12, 1969, to May 18, 1973, when she resigned in order that she might be reassigned to office services. Ms. Aschenbeck filled a vacancy created by the promotion of Mary Harris, a black woman, to a level 4 position elsewhere in office services.

On November 5, 1973, Ms. Aschenbeck was placed in training for a multilith operator's job and in 20 days was promoted to that position, as a level 4. At this time, the duplicating section of the office services division consisted of Mr. E. J. Wilkins, supervisor; Ms. Wanda Simms, assistant supervisor; plaintiff, Ms. Aschenbeck and another Xerox copy machine operator.

Approximately fifteen months later, in March of 1975, Mr. Wilkins was transferred to the auditing division within the company, and Ms. Simms was promoted to the supervisor's position. At the same time it was announced by Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hansberry, the manager of office services, that Ms. Aschenbeck had been promoted to assistant section supervisor of the duplicating section, a level 5 position.

6. Plaintiff, believing that he had been discriminatorily denied the promotion which Ms. Aschenbeck received, filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "EEOC") on April 10, 1975. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12. On August 28, 1975, the EEOC issued its determination in the matter, concluding that there was reasonable cause to believe that plaintiff had been denied the promotion on the basis of his race. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. On October 14, 1975, the EEOC issued its "Notice of Right to Sue Within 90 Days," Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, and on October 31, 1975, plaintiff filed his original complaint in this Court.

7. In March of 1976, plaintiff was transferred into the dental claims department of defendant's Southwestern Home Office as a claims examiner. Upon his transfer into the department, plaintiff was a level 4 in training for a level 5 position. After three months in the department, plaintiff received his promotion to level 5. Plaintiff's duties as a claims examiner included the examination and payment of dental claims. In early 1977, plaintiff was promoted to a claims quality reviewer, a level 6 position, in which he examined the more complex dental claims prior to payment and advised other claims examiners how and whether to pay dental claims. During the year in which plaintiff worked in the dental claims department there were five or six other Blacks in his section.

On May 3, 1977, plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff has never filed an EEOC charge based on his discharge by defendant and has never sought to amend his complaint in this proceeding to allege that his discharge was retaliatory or even discriminatory.

(a) Defendant's Failure to Promote Plaintiff

8. The decision to promote Ms. Aschenbeck rather than the plaintiff to assistant section supervisor was made by Mr. Wilkins, the section supervisor, and Mr. Hansberry, who was manager of the office services division. Based on personnel evaluations and their observations of plaintiff and Ms. Aschenbeck during their tenure in the section, Wilkins and Hansberry concluded that although plaintiff had more education and seniority in the duplicating section, plaintiff lacked other qualities necessary to be a supervisor.

For example, in a March 18, 1974, a personnel appraisal report on plaintiff, Mr. Wilkins, plaintiff's supervisor, indicated that plaintiff "seems to have difficulty in communicating with others in the section, and for this reason I feel it would be very difficult for him to train other employees." Wilkins further recommended that it "would be helpful for him if he would learn to communicate with others and to enroll in some of the study courses offered by the Company." Defendant's Exhibit 21, page 24.

On the other hand, in a September 24, 1974 evaluation of Ms. Aschenbeck, Mr. Wilkins described her as the "type of employee who is a real pleasure to work with," as well as "very cooperative" and someone who "gets along well with almost everyone." Defendant's Exhibit 22. In addition, Mr. Wilkins found Ms. Aschenbeck to have a pleasant and businesslike attitude, as well as an ability to reschedule projects and to explain tactfully to the various division heads why their work had to be rescheduled.

9. Further testimony established that plaintiff was frequently sullen and sharp with others in his division, was inflexible with regard to the rescheduling of work that was often necessary in the section, and was uncooperative about working overtime.

In addition, other incidents such as plaintiff's confrontations with Marian Tipton and Norman Schnatterer in two separate incidents in the commissary, see Defendant's Exhibit 21 at p. 23, as well as a subsequent clash with Mr. Robbins over plaintiff's parking in unauthorized areas, are consistent with the Court's finding that although plaintiff was an able worker, he was also a defensive, uncommunicative individual who believed that company rules did not apply to him. In short, he lacked the ability to work as part of a team effort.

Thus, although plaintiff had performed and did perform well in his subsequent period of employment for defendant in other positions, at the time he was passed over for promotion, his supervisors reasonably concluded that he lacked the necessary skills in communication and training ability to be a supervisor. Therefore, the Court finds that the selection of Ms. Aschenbeck over plaintiff was not based on racial discrimination.² Rather, the Court concludes that this decision was based on a good-faith, rational evaluation of the relative qualifications and abilities of the two individuals in question.

10. In order to establish a prima facie³ case of racial discrimination according to a theory of disparate treatment, a Title VII complainant must prove: "(1) that he belongs to a protected minority; (2) that he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) that, despite his...