Wood v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 80-1028
| Decision Date | 19 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1028,80-1028 |
| Citation | 637 F.2d 1188 |
| Parties | 26 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 904, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,532, 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1031 Mary Josephine WOOD, Appellant, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James A. Daugherty, St. Louis, Mo. (Leo E. Eickhoff, Jr., Jack C. Lorenz, St. Louis, Mo., on brief), for appellee.
Anthony L. Anderson, Anderson, Preuss & Zwibelman, Clayton, Mo., for appellant.
Before STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, * District Judge.
Mary Josephine Wood appeals from the judgment of the district court 1 which found that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (hereinafter Southwestern Bell), appellee, did not discriminate against appellant due to her sex and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We affirm.
On July 3, 1975, appellant filed her complaint against Southwestern Bell alleging sex discrimination. Summary judgment was granted by the district court 2 in favor of Southwestern Bell, but that ruling was reversed by this Court and the case was remanded to the district court. 3 The matter was tried to the district court. A memorandum opinion was filed and judgment entered on behalf of Southwestern Bell on September 18, 1979. This appeal followed.
Appellant alleges four points of error. First, the district court erred by finding Southwestern Bell had not discriminated against appellant in her application for, training in, and demotion from a deskman's position. 4 Second, the district court erred by finding that the appellant was not the subject of harassment or reprisal in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. Third, it was error to find that appellant had not received disparate compensation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). And finally, the district court erred in failing to exclude witnesses from the courtroom after the trial to the court had begun.
Appellant has a distinguished service background with Southwestern Bell. She has been with the company for 30 years and currently remains in their employ. She began with the company in 1950 as a junior clerk and was promoted in 1951, 1952, 1958, and 1965. Her promotion in 1965 was to the management position of personnel records analyst. In 1967, after a leave of absence, she returned to the non-management position of repair clerk.
Southwestern Bell is organized into various intra-company divisions. The plant division is divided into craft and non-craft positions. Prior to 1968 appellant's employment at Southwestern Bell had generally been in non-craft positions. In 1968 she made her first application for promotion to a craft position. After the form of her application had been approved by her union it was properly accepted by the company. After passing a craft test, required of all persons entering craft positions, she was awarded the job of deskman on the test board at the St. Louis midtown office of Southwestern Bell.
The job of deskman involved the operation of local testing facilities to test communication circuits and associated equipment. Appellant's responsibilities included analyzing trouble spots on equipment, dispatching repair forces, and locating and clearing communication problems between the company's central office and the customer's premises. Appellant was also responsible for the preparation and maintenance of various records and reports relating to these duties. In short, the position of deskman, as the district court noted, required the use of rather unique analytical abilities.
Appellant remained at the position of deskman from December 1, 1968, until November 7, 1969, at which time she was removed and returned to her former position as a repair clerk. Thereafter, appellant continued to make bids for a deskman's position. These bids were denied and appellant filed her discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 7, 1970.
Appellant began the job as a deskman along with four other individuals who were also new to that position. This group, including appellant, consisted of two women and three men. Appellant initially received on the job training from other deskmen. After two months of such training a chief deskman, a management employee, was assigned to train her in the proper techniques and procedures involved in the position.
During appellant's first few months in the position of deskman her supervisors determined that she would be subject to a probationary period due to the unsatisfactory progress she was making in learning her new position. Her supervisors noted that she had difficulty in correctly analyzing the source of equipment trouble spots and in determining what corrective measures were necessary. Formal appraisals of appellant's progress were made on at least four separate occasions. Finally, on October 3, 1969, a formal appraisal by appellant's supervisors indicated that she had made no improvement in her overall job performance and that her technical abilities were unsatisfactory. Appellant also received a poor appraisement of the productivity and quality of her work. After this final appraisal, it was recommended that she be assigned to a position more consistent with her capabilities.
Appellant's first two claims of error may be reviewed together. First, she argues that the district court erred by finding that she was not discriminated against in her application for, training in and demotion from a deskman's job. Second, she asserts the district court erred by finding that she was not the victim of harassment and reprisal as a result of the filing of her EEOC claim.
The complainant in a Title VII case carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Should the complainant establish a prima facie case of discrimination:
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 (sex) ... To dispel the adverse inference from a prima facie showing (of disparate treatment) the employer need only "articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employee's (treatment)."
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577-78, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949-50, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978) quoting McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra. See also Board of Trustees v. Sweeny, 439 U.S. 24, 25, 99 S.Ct. 295, 295, 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978). The complainant is then entitled to rebut proof of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employee's treatment by "introduc(ing) evidence that the proferred justification is merely a pretext for discrimination." Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, supra, 438 U.S. at 578, 98 S.Ct. at 2950; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, 411 U.S. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. at 1825. This Court has recognized this three tiered approach in many of its recent decisions. McCosh v. City of Grand Forks, 628 F.2d 1058, 1062 (8th Cir. 1980); Reeb v. Marshall, 626 F.2d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1980); Ligons v. Bechtel Power Corporation, 625 F.2d 771, 773 (8th Cir. 1980); Coleman v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 622 F.2d 408, 410 (8th Cir. 1980); Osborne v. Cleland, 620 F.2d 195, 198 (8th Cir. 1980); Womack v. Munson, 619 F.2d 1292, 1296 (8th Cir. 1980); Kirby v. Colony Furniture Co., 613 F.2d 696, 702 (8th Cir. 1980).
From the district court's memorandum opinion it is unclear whether the court's finding for Southwestern Bell was based on appellant's failure to establish a prima facie case or her failure to carry the ultimate burden of persuasion that she was discriminated against due to her sex. For purposes of this appeal we will assume that appellant made out a prima facie case of discrimination at the trial level.
It is clear from the record that Southwestern Bell successfully carried its burden of producing evidence which articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the treatment accorded appellant. The district court found that the appellant received intense training with the other individuals who began as deskmen with her, and that in fact, she received more on the job training than any of the others in her group. The district court found this additional training to be necessitated by appellant's lack of background in craft work and by the continued appraisals of her work which indicated that she needed improvement in several areas. The district court further found that all the beginning deskmen in appellant's group made satisfactory progress, except appellant, despite the many efforts to train her; and that appellant was demoted from her position as a deskman due to her inability to perform the job satisfactorily, and not as a result of her being a female. Finally, the district court found that there was no credible evidence of harassment or reprisal against appellant as a result of the filing of her EEOC charge.
Our close review of the entire record indicates that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. Johnson v. Nordstrom-Larpenteur Agency, Inc., 623 F.2d 1279, 1281 (8th Cir. 1980); F.R.Civ.P. 52(a). The evidence adduced at the trial amply supported each of them. These findings of fact support the conclusion that Southwestern Bell did not discriminate against appellant in her application for, training in and demotion from the deskman's position. The district court's findings of fact also are sufficient to support its conclusion that the appellant was not the victim of harassment or reprisal. The evidence in the record supports the trial court's finding that appellant was demoted from the position of deskman because of her unsatisfactory performance in that position, and that her poor performance was not the result of disparate treatment due to her sex.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Omechinski
...erroneous denial of an exclusion request does not mandate reversal absent a showing of prejudice. See, e.g., Wood v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 637 F.2d 1188, 1194 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 837, 102 S.Ct. 142, 70 L.Ed.2d 118 (1981). Others courts have suggested, without reaching t......
-
Menard v. City of Carlisle
...does not specifically require that the exclusionary request be made at any particular stage of the trial." Wood v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 637 F.2d 1188, 1194 (8th Cir.1981). "It need not be demanded at the very opening of the testimony; at any time later, when the supposed exigency ari......
-
U.S. v. Ell
...erroneous denial of an exclusion request does not mandate reversal absent a showing of prejudice. See, e.g., Wood v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 637 F.2d 1188, 1194 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 837, 102 S.Ct. 142, 70 L.Ed.2d 118 (1981); Virgin Islands v. Edinborough, 625 F.2d 472......
-
U.S. v. Burgess
...99 S.Ct. 1546, 59 L.Ed.2d 795 (1979), reh. denied, 441 U.S. 957, 99 S.Ct. 2188, 60 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1979); Wood v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 637 F.2d 1188, 1194 (8th Cir. 1981); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Edinborough, 625 F.2d 472, 474 (3d Cir. 1980); United States v. Oropeza, ......