Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 14-2168
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:12-cv-01382-TLW)
Argued:
Decided:
June 1, 2016
judgment
Department
several
of
to
his
Labor,
former
employer,
Licensing,
individually
named
and
the
South
Regulation
defendants,
on
Carolina
(LLR),
and
claims
of
his
For the
who
is
African-American,
worked
for
LLR
from
Occupational
Licensing
division,
which
provides
and
commissions
responsible
for
regulating
their
respective professions.
When
Christian
began
his
tenure
at
LLR,
each
of
these
personnel
dedicated
to
each
board.
In
2008,
Adrienne
division
in
order
to
3
consolidate
licensing
staff
with
issuance
of
occupational
performing
licenses,
boards
licensing
for
most
administered
services,
of
by
the
LLR.
OLC was
including
the
professional
and
Youmans
appointed
of
the
boards
and
number
of
LLR
personnel
were
South
Carolina
Attorney
General
concluding
that
LLR
personnel did not have the authority to issue licenses for the
practice of pharmacy.
anonymous
letter
set
off
something
of
political
House
III,
subcommittee
of
Representatives.
who
with
chaired
oversight
the
of
Representative
House
LLR,
of
William
Representatives
testified
during
his
Other
Youmans testified at
case,
she
stated
that,
during
the
hearing,
Sandifer
found
to
be
unusual.
Youmans
also
testified
that
she
innuendos.
Director
Templetons
of
LLR.
nomination,
At
the
Haley
press
conference
referred
to
announcing
unacceptable
J.A. 97071.
Templeton herself
Templetons
confirmation
hearing,
legislators
Prior to
to
the
Joint
Appendix
Board
of
Pharmacy
and
several
others
detailing
number
of
with Youmans and two LLR employees, Rion Alvey and Jim Knight.
After her confirmation as director of LLR, Templeton made a
number
of
staffing
changes.
In
addition
to
OLC,
the
Office
of
Board
Services,
led
by
Assistant
to
retire,
which
he
subsequently
did.
She
appointed
agency.
From
January
to
August
2011,
LLR
executed
be
dismantled
through
RIF
6
of
all
of
its
employees,
including Christian.
two
twelve
were
African-American,
were
white,
and
four
were
Most of
assistants
performing
licensing
or
compliance
the
RIF
available
Office
of
Board
was
announced,
Christian
interviewed
for
positions:
Assistant
Deputy
Director
of
the
Services,
Assistant
Deputy
Director
of
the
an
African-American
female,
conducted
the
interviews.
chose
performing
Ron
the
Cook,
duties
an
now
LLR
employee
assigned
to
who
the
had
already
Assistant
been
Deputy
Christian did not apply for any other positions within LLR,
and
eventually
accepted
the
administrative
assistant
position
an
annual
salary
of
$78,775.
As
an
administrative
2012.
B.
Christian
alleging
filed
violations
a
of
multi-count
complaint
Title
and
VII,
against
against
LLR
Catherine
Rion
Alvey
(collectively,
the
individual
defendants),
Following discovery,
The
Recommendation
judgment
to
the
recommending
defendants
that
on
the
all
court
claims.
grant
summary
Overruling
Christian timely
We
review
district
judgment de novo.
courts
decision
to
grant
summary
dispute
as
to
any
material
fact
and
the
movant
is
arising
therefrom
in
do
not
the
light
most
favorable
suffice,
nor
does
mere
scintilla
of
Thompson
v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002)
(citation and quotation marks omitted).
A.
Christian argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment to LLR on his Title VII claims.
We disagree.
under
presenting
Title
direct
VII
or
through
two
circumstantial
avenues
of
evidence
proof:
that
by
raises
or
by
shifting framework.
416
F.3d
310,
318
relying
on
the
McDonnell
Douglas 3
burden-
Cir.
2005)
(citing
Hill
v.
Lockheed
Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 285 (4th Cir. 2004),
recognized as abrogated on other grounds, Foster v. Univ. of
Md.-E.
Shore,
787
F.3d
243
(4th
Cir.
2015)).
Under
the
to
the
employer
to
articulate
non-
the
plaintiff.
Id.
Once
the
employer
meets
this
burdens-disappear[s],
and
the
sole
remaining
issue
[is]
10
employment
discrimination.
action
is
actually
pretext
for
Christian proceeded
infer
discriminatory
intent.
Br.
Pl.-Appellant
2324
He refers to the
Donahoe,
omitted).
667
F.3d
835,
860
(7th
Cir.
See Coleman
2012)
(citation
See Cook v. CSX Transp. Corp., 988 F.2d 507, 512 (4th
Cir. 1993).
evaluate
the
totality
of
the
evidence
to
determine
whether he has shown that the RIF and his non-selection for the
available management positions were motivated by discriminatory
intent.
1.
Christian has failed to present evidence raising a genuine
issue
of
material
fact
about
whether
race
motivated
LLRs
employees,
several
South
Carolina
legislators,
and
the
licensing
operations
to
address
these
problems.
timely
issue
licenses
and
that
12
LLR
had
no
evidence
that
attack
on
LLRs
rationale
for
the
RIF
is
employees about whether the agencys reasons for the RIF were
well founded or foolish, without more, are insufficient to raise
an inference of discrimination.
Sch. Bd., 293 F.3d 716, 72223 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Williams
v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 456 (4th Cir. 1989)).
[I]t
is not our province to decide whether the reason was wise, fair,
or even correct, ultimately, so long as it truly was the reason
for the plaintiffs [adverse employment action].
Id. at 272
us, no reasonable jury could find LLRs stated reason for the
RIF to be a fabrication to conceal discrimination.
Christian also questions the implementation of the RIF.
disagrees
with
LLRs
decision
to
retain
the
Office
of
He
Board
OLC
through
RIF
of
13
its
employees
and
are
not
probative
evidence
discussed.
of
discrimination
for
the
reasons
just
He directs us to
of
contends
OLC
personnel
that
these
disproportionate
impact
therefore
support
his
were
African-American.
figures
on
claim
illustrate
the
African-American
that
the
Christian
RIFs
employees
agencys
decision
and
to
RIF
of
the
subdivision
was
discriminatory.
that
of
the
other
subdivisions
of
the
Division
of
figures
discrimination.
Christian
offers
not
probative
of
Christian also tries to show that, after the RIF, white OLC
employees
were
treated
more
favorably
than
African-American
inadmissible
positions
he
hearsay
following
relies
entirely
regarding
how
the
RIF.
on
speculation
LLR
And
as
filled
and
available
Christian
concedes,
that
white
employees
were,
in
fact,
treated
individuals
positions,
their
Christian
identified
preselection,
for
without
their
more,
respective
would
not
be
racial
epithet,
only
rumors
to
that
effect.
Rumors
admissible
evidence,
and
15
the
subjective
beliefs
of
non-selection
for
management
position
with
LLR
conduct
was
racially
motivated.
See
Tinsley
v.
First
Union Natl Bank, 155 F.3d 435, 444 (4th Cir. 1998) (It is the
perception
question
of
of
the
decision
maker
[discrimination],
which
not
is
the
relevant
opinions
to
of
the
[the
Cook,
Assistant
co-worker
Deputy
interviewed.
who
Director
obtained
positions
one
for
of
which
the
available
Christian
also
Americans
persuasion,
and
as
used
you
a
people
racial
or
epithet
people
in
of
reference
your
to
an
remark
remarks
cannot
upon
employment
which
decision
[discrimination].
be
stray
or
plaintiff
in
isolated
relies
question,
they
and
were
cannot
[u]nless
related
be
to
evidence
the
the
of
McCarthy v. Kemper Life Ins. Cos., 924 F.2d 683, 686 (7th Cir.
1991)), overruled on other grounds by Desert Palace, Inc. v.
Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003); see also Merritt v. Old Dominion
Freight Line, Inc., 601 F.3d 289, 300 (4th Cir. 2010) ([I]n the
absence
of
question,
clear
the
nexus
materiality
with
of
the
stray
employment
or
decision
in
remarks
is
isolated
substantially reduced.).
Christian counters that Cook was actually a driving force
behind the RIF, and therefore his racist behavior is evidence of
the discriminatory intent behind it.
Cook
claimed
to
have
influence
with
Carolina
Governor
Nikki Haley because Cooks wife cared for the Haley children and
that Cook had a hit list of people that he wanted to see
terminated
from
the
agency.
Cook,
however,
had
no
actual
with Governor Haley, had not discussed LLR with her, and had not
had any contact with her or her family since election night.
Templeton testified that she did not consult with Cook on any
personnel
believed
matter.
that
Cook
decisions at LLR.
Christian
had
such
also
an
could
ability
not
to
have
reasonably
dictate
personnel
Christian also
testified that he did not believe that Cook had any influence
17
with the governor until the RIF took place and the individuals
Cook purportedly identified on his hit list were terminated.
Because Cook had no influence over LLRs decision to execute the
RIF, and Christian could not have reasonably believed that he
did, his alleged comments have no nexus with LLRs challenged
actions and therefore are not relevant to Christians claim of
discrimination.
Accordingly, considering Christians proffered evidence and
arguments in the context of the record as a whole, we conclude
that he has failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence
that the RIF of all OLC employees that resulted in Christians
termination was racially motivated.
conclude
that
Christian,
relying
the
same
evidence,
has
18
plaintiff
alleging
failure
to
promote
can
prove
evidence
that
otherwise
undermines
the
Heiko v. Colombo
Sav. Bank, F.S.B., 434 F.3d 249, 259 (4th Cir. 2006) (citations
omitted).
Id.
the better qualified candidate for the position, but must show
evidence which indicates that [the employers] stated reasons
for promoting [the other candidate] over [the plaintiff] were a
pretext for discrimination.
the
positions
at
issue
were
simply
better
qualified
for
Christian contends
that a reasonable jury could find that his non-selection was the
product of discrimination because he was interviewed only once
for all three positions, the individuals who were ultimately
selected for those positions were already serving in an interim
capacity
or
otherwise
fulfilling
the
responsibilities
of
the
position, he was scored on only one score sheet for all three
19
positions,
one
interviewers
score
sheet
indicates
that
the
making
all
he
not
has
reasonable
produced
inferences
sufficient
in
favor
evidence
to
of
avoid
As we have already
interview and score sheet for all three positions, or the fact
that one of his interviewers raised his score two points from
what he had initially marked.
Most
importantly,
individuals
who
were
Christian
selected
the
successful
does
were
not
not
argue
qualified
that
the
for
the
candidates
with
Christians
qualifications
of
that
subdivision.
Dorman,
who
was
awarded
the
had over thirty years of experience at LLR and had acted as the
manager of that subdivision for two years while the Assistant
Deputy Director was on detail.
In addition, Ido,
Dorman, and Cook all had experience that was directly relevant
to their respective positions prior to assuming those positions
or
the
associated
responsibilities
on
an
interim
basis.
we
conclude
that
Christian
has
failed
to
of
him,
or
that
LLRs
reasons
for
choosing
LLR is entitled
21
those
Christian
should
not
also
have
contends
received
that
the
summary
individual
judgment
defendants
on
his
civil
Again, we disagree.
Pye v. Estate of
consideration
of
civil
conspiracy
claim
The
is
the
plaintiff.
Id.
(citation
omitted).
Christian
Christian
as
evidence
that
she
alleged
co-
He
22
and
the
other
Br. Pl.-Appellant
between
conflicting
[p]ermissible
inferences
inferences
must
from
still
circumstantial
be
within
the
would learn about complaints concerning the agency and meet with
individuals dissatisfied with that agencys performance prior to
her confirmation is entirely unremarkable.
enough.
grant
of
summary
judgment
to
LLR
and
the
individual
defendants.
AFFIRMED
24