White v. Vathally, 83-1767

• Decision Date: 01 May 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1767,83-1767
• Citation: 34 FEP Cases 1130,732 F.2d 1037
• Parties: 34 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1130, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,336 Sharon WHITE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Thomas VATHALLY and City of Haverhill, Defendants, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 1037

732 F.2d 1037

34 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1130,

34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,336

Sharon WHITE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Thomas VATHALLY and City of Haverhill, Defendants, Appellees.

No. 83-1767.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Argued March 5, 1984.

Decided May 1, 1984.

Kevin G. Powers, Lynn, Mass., with whom Johnson & Powers, P.C., Lynn, Mass., was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.

Ashod N. Amirian, Haverhill, Mass., with whom Paul Kazarosian, and Kazarosian, Kazarosian & Colella, Haverhill, Mass., were on brief, for defendants, appellees.

Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, BOWNES, Circuit Judge, and GIERBOLINI, ^* District Judge.

BOWNES, Circuit Judge.

This is an employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., and under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff Sharon White claims that defendants, the City of Haverhill and former Mayor Thomas Vathally, discriminated against her on the basis of her sex in failing to appoint her to a permanent position as Health Department code enforcement inspector. Following a two-day bench trial, the district court issued a published opinion, White v. Vathally, 570 F.Supp. 1431 (D.Mass.1983), and entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals, alleging errors of law and fact in the district court's judgment.

The factual background is fully set out in the district court's opinion, and only a brief summary is required here. Plaintiff worked for the City of Haverhill as a temporary Health Department code enforcement inspector from March 26, 1979, through September 19, 1980, when her CETA appointment terminated. She had completed some college credits in psychology and held an associate's degree, but did not have a bachelor's degree. Her work included checking buildings for health code violations and testing the lead content of paint. On August 31, 1980, Vincent Belfiore, another code enforcement inspector, retired from his job, creating a vacancy. At plaintiff's request, Mayor Vathally met with her on September 2, 1980; he informed her that there were no positions available at that time. From October 2, 1980, through October 5, 1980, defendants advertised the availability of the position left vacant by Belfiore's retirement; the advertisements did not mention a need or preference for a college degree. Plaintiff applied for the job, submitting an application, resume, cover letter, and letters of recommendation to Vathally. Vathally asked Dr. Grillo, the city's environmental consultant, to review the applications of the two finalists for the job, plaintiff White and Domenic Badolato. Badolato, a white male, had been employed as a code enforcement inspector under the CETA program from mid-June of 1978 through mid-December of 1979; he held a bachelor's degree with a major in biological science, and had completed some post-graduate credits. Grillo, who had recommended Badolato for a previous job with the city, and who was listed by Badolato as a reference, recommended Badolato for the job on the basis of Badolato's superior educational background. Without consulting anyone else, Vathally, the city's sole appointing authority, hired Badolato.

In order to prove an individual claim of discriminatory treatment, whether under the Constitution or under Title VII, a plaintiff must prove purposeful discrimination, see Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-41, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2047-48, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). Where direct evidence of discriminatory intent is lacking, we have recognized that the analytical framework for proving discriminatory treatment set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824-26, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), is equally applicable to constitutional and to Title VII claims. T & S Service Associates v. Crenson, 666 F.2d 722, 724 n. 2 (1st Cir.1981). Applying the McDonnell Douglas standard, the district court found that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment; the parties do not dispute that finding, and it is not in issue on appeal. It is the court's subsequent findings that defendants met their burden of "articulat[ing] some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" for their action, McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824, and that plaintiffs failed to show the proffered reason to be a pretext for discrimination, id. at 804, 93 S.Ct. at 1825, which plaintiff contends are erroneous.

It is important to remember that the ultimate issue in discriminatory treatment cases is whether the plaintiff proves intentional discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the allocation of evidentiary burdens under McDonnell Douglas is

merely a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination. A prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas raises an inference of discrimination only because we presume these acts, if otherwise unexplained, are more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors.

Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949, 2950, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978). The burden of persuasion on the issue of discriminatory intent always remains with the plaintiff, and the "legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" of unlawful discrimination raised by a prima facie showing compels judgment for the plaintiff only "[i]f the trier of fact believes the plaintiff's evidence, and if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption." Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 & 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093 & 1094, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). If the defendant carries the burden of articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his actions, the presumption of discrimination "drops from the case," id. at 255 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. at 1095 n. 10, and plaintiff's burden of rebutting defendant's proffered reason "merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination." Id. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095.

The district court, citing Burdine, correctly stated the defendant's burden of producing evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason as follows:

[T]he employer only need raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff by introducing evidence setting forth the reason for the plaintiff's rejection.

....

The employer does not have the "burden of persuading the court that it had convincing, objective reasons for preferring the chosen applicant above the plaintiff." Burdine, supra, at 257 . The employer need only produce evidence sufficient to allow the factfinder reasonably to conclude that the employment decision was not motivated by discriminatory animus. Id. A weak correlation between the articulated criteria and job performance may support an inference that the employer's proffered explanation was a pretext for illegal discrimination, but it does not compel such an inference.

The district court also noted that "the employer's explanation of legitimate reasons must be clear and reasonably specific," rather than "[a] 'passing reference by just one of many witnesses to some deficiency' in the plaintiff's qualifications or a vague averment of good faith," quoting Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1012 n. 5 (1st Cir.1979). It recognized that one purpose of articulating reasons is to give the plaintiff a fair opportunity to respond, see Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255-56, 101 S.Ct. at 1094-95, and found that defendants adequately articulated Badolato's superior educational qualifications as a legitimate reason for preferring him over White.

Although plaintiff argues that educational qualifications were not reasonably related to the requirements of the job in question and thus could not constitute a "legitimate" explanation, the district court expressly found to the contrary. On appeal, we cannot say that it was clear error to find that an employer might reasonably regard Badolato's educational qualifications as indicating "self-discipline and an ability to complete tasks and follow instructions."

Plaintiff raises a more troublesome question concerning the evidentiary basis for the court's finding that defendants met their burden of production. The articulation of reasons must take place "through the introduction of admissible evidence." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255, 101 S.Ct. at 1094. "An articulation not admitted into evidence will not suffice. Thus, the defendant cannot meet its burden merely through an answer to the complaint or by argument of counsel." Id. at 255, n. 9, 101 S.Ct. at 1094, n. 9. The district court found as follows:

In his answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions, and in his deposition, Vathally repeatedly stated that the decision to hire Badolato was based on Badolato's superior qualifications for the job--specifically, his educational background. Vathally testified at trial that he based his decision on Grillo's recommendation. Grillo in turn testified that he believed Badolato's bachelor's degree and extensive training in the sciences made him better qualified for the job.

Vathally's answers to interrogatories and requests were apparently filed with the court in the course of discovery, and the relevant excerpts from his deposition were appended to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. ¹ In reviewing the record, however, we find no indication that those answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions or the deposition were actually introduced in evidence at trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 32, 33 and 36.

Plaintiff argues that the court committed reversible error in relying on evidence which was not introduced at trial. The district court explained its use of the materials as follows:

[W]hen a reason is supplied by an answer to an interrogatory or in a deposition not strictly "introduced," this deficiency may be cured...