Silberhorn v. General Iron Works Co., 78-1148
| Decision Date | 12 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1148,78-1148 |
| Citation | 584 F.2d 970 |
| Parties | 18 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 507, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8651 Josef R. SILBERHORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL IRON WORKS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Alex Stephen Keller of Keller, Dunievitz & Johnson, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff-appellant.
Bruce W. Sattler and L. Tyrone Holt of Holland & Hart, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellee.
Before PICKETT, McWILLIAMS and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
Josef R. Silberhorn, a native of Hungary and naturalized United States citizen, and a former employee of General Iron Works Company doing business near Denver, Colorado, brought this action alleging that the company had discharged him because of his national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 1 After a trial without a jury the court concluded as a matter of law that Silberhorn had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination by the company. The court then made a factual finding that the discharge of Silberhorn was not tainted with discriminatory motives, and dismissed the complaint. This appeal presents the question of whether this finding is supported by sufficient evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
In the trial of Title VII cases such as this the law is settled that initially the employee is required to make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination on the part of the employer. The prima facie showing is not the equivalent of a factual finding of discrimination, but the burden then shifts to the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharge was for legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons. The employee shall then have an opportunity to rebut that evidence. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). More recently, in Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978), the Court explained the prima facie rule of McDonnell Douglas, as follows:
When the prima facie case is understood in the light of the opinion in McDonnell Douglas, it is apparent that the burden which shifts to the employer is merely that of proving that he based his employment decision on a legitimate consideration, and not an illegitimate one such as race. To prove that, he need not prove that he pursued the course which would both enable him to achieve his own business goal And allow him to consider the Most employment applications. . . . To dispel the adverse inference from a prima facie showing under McDonnell Douglas, the employer need only "articulate some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection." McDonnell Douglas, supra, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817 at 1824.
See also Turner v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 555 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir. 1977).
The determination of the factual issue of whether there was a discriminatory discharge is for the trial court, and its finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Olson v. Philco-Ford, 531 F.2d 474 (10th Cir. 1976); Williams v. Southern U. Gas. Co., 529 F.2d 483 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 959, 97 S.Ct. 381, 50 L.Ed.2d 325 (1977); Woods v. North American Rockwell, 480 F.2d 644 (10th Cir. 1973).
Silberhorn was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1926, immigrated to the United States in 1957, and became a naturalized citizen in 1964. He was a welder by trade and obtained employment with General Iron Works Company in 1966. He was discharged on March 10, 1975, for what appeared to be violation of safety rules. During the period of Silberhorn's employment with the company his association was not very pleasant. He was erratic and subject to displays of violent temper. Over the nine-year period he engaged in numerous conflicts and disagreements with fellow employees, and sometimes with his superiors. During...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Marsh
...(5th Cir.1981); Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Association, 615 F.2d 1025, 1036 (5th Cir.1980); Silberhorn v. General Iron Works Co., 584 F.2d 970, 972 (10th Cir. 1978). An employer is not required to prove that its decision was correct. Id. Indeed, Title VII does not ensure th......
-
Foster v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.
...lost his job. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Silberhorn v. General Iron Works Co., 584 F.2d 970 (10th Cir.1978). The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the plaintiff has been the victim of intentional discr......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Flasher Co., Inc.
...102 S.Ct. at 1789-90. Appellate review is under the clearly erroneous standard. Pitre, 843 F.2d at 1266; Silberhorn v. General Iron Works, 584 F.2d 970, 971 (10th Cir.1978). B. Step Two in the McDonnell Douglas Analysis Merely Requires the Defendant to Articulate by Evidence a Facially Nond......
-
Bostic v. Wall
...1025, 1036 (5th Cir.1980); Corley v. Jackson Police Department, 566 F.2d 994, 1003 n. 14 (5th Cir.1978); Silberhorn v. General Iron Works Co., 584 F.2d 970, 972 (10th Cir. 1978); Tims v. Board of Education, 452 F.2d 551 (8th Cir.1971). An employer is not required to prove that its decision ......