Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01238/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01238-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

~ 

I 

PI LED 

United S~!ltei; ei.Ju,:f ~f Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RUBY SCHOENFELD, } 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MOUNTAIN ) 

STATES, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 3 1QQ1 

KOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1238 

(D.C. No. 87-Z-1428) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before LOGAN, SETH, and TACHA., Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff-appellant Ruby Schoenfeld appeals from a judgment 

in favor of defendant-appellee AT&T of the Mountain States, Inc. 

(AT&T). Plaintiff sought recovery for discriminatory and 

retaliatory discharge pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, 42 u.s.c. SS 20003-2 and 3(a), respectively. 

Following a five-day trial, the district court concluded 

plaintiff's dismissal was not motivated by her gender or in 

retaliation for any protected conduct. 

On appeal, plaintiff cites four errors by the district court 

warranting reversal: (1) dismissal of plaintiff's claim for 

disparate impact~ (2) refusal to consider alleged procedural 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1238 Document: 010110031729 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 1 
irregularities as evidence of pretext; (3) denial of plaintiff's 

motion to compel the identities of X and Y; and (4) issuance of an 

order to seal plaintiff's motion to reconsider. We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's disparate 

impact claim. We will set aside the district court's findings of 

fact only if they are clearly erroneous. Mohammed Y.:. Callaway, 

698 F.2d 395, 399 (10th Cir. 1983). A prima facie case of 

employment discrimination is established by proving an employer's 

facially neutral practice has a significant disparate impact on 

members of the plaintiff's class. Griggs Y.:. Duke Power~, 401 

U.S. 424, 429-30 (1971). At trial, plaintiff attempted to 

demonstrate AT&T's progressive discipline system, although 

facially neutral, results in more severe penalties for women. She 

now contends the evidence produced at trial, including the 

information contained in Exhibit 27, establishes a prima facie 

case of discrimination. 

Exhibit 27 is part of a survey of 370 AT&T personnel files. 

Fifty-nine of these employees had documented disciplinary 

problems. Seventeen of these employees were female. Plaintiff 

only offered these statistics at trial; she did not offer to 

explain their significance. When properly authenticated, 

statistics are acceptable circumstantial evidence of 

discrimination. Parties offering such statistics, however, must 

demonstrate "that the disparity they complain of is the result of 

one or more of the employment practices that they are 

attacking II Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. YL Atonio, 490 

U.S. 642, 109 S. Ct. 2115, 2125 (1989); see Watson Y.:. Fort Worth 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1238 Document: 010110031729 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 2 
Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994-95 (1988). At trial, plaintiff 

made no effort whatsoever to satisfy this "specific causation" 

requirement. She merely handed the raw data to the court and 

expected the court to draw conclusions favorable to her claim. 

The district court did not err in concluding plaintiff had failed 

to make a prima facie showing of gender discrimination based on 

disparate impact. Plaintiff now attempts to prove causation to 

this court by explaining the significance of the numbers contained 

in Exhibit 27. We will not consider this evidence on appeal. See 

Nuff Y..!.. International Paper Co., 656 F.2d 553, 559 (10th Cir. 

1981). 

The district court properly considered the evidence of 

alleged procedural irregularities in the inspection AT&T conducted 

before terminating plaintiff and determined ·they did not 

constitute evidence of pretext. We review this factual 

determination for clear error. Mohanuned, 698 F.2d at 399. To 

rebut the employer's stated nondiscriminatory business reason for 

discharge, the plaintiff must prove this reason is only a pretext 

for discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. Y..!.. Green, 411 U.S. 

792, 804 (1973). In the present case, AT&T claims it terminated 

plaintiff because she was involved in a fight. Plaintiff argued 

this reason was pretextual because AT&T instructed the union 

representative not to speak during the investigatory interviews. 

On appeal, plaintiff asserts the district court failed to 

consider this evidence of pretext. We disagree. The district 

court's ruling on this issue indicates the court considered 

plaintiff's evidence and determined it was insufficient to 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1238 Document: 010110031729 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 3 
l 

• establish pretext. Moreover, plaintiff failed to show AT&T's 

instruction to the union representative violated any company 

practice, procedure, or agreement with the union. Even if AT&T's 

conduct did constitute a "procedural irregularity," this deviation 

from normal practice was not sufficiently serious to constitute 

evidence of pretext. ~~,Foster Y:.. MCI Telecommunications 

Corp., 773 F.2d 1116, 1120 (10th Cir. 1985); Mohammed, 698 F.2d at 

401; Williams Y:.. DeKalb County, 577 F.2d 248, 254-55 (5th Cir. 

1978). 

The district court properly refused to grant plaintiff's 

motion to compel the discovery of the identities of X and Y. This 

ruling will be reversed only if it was an abuse of discretion. 

Centurion Indus .• Inc. Y:.. Warren Steurer & Assoc., 665 F.2d 323, 

326 (10th Cir. 1981). The court compelled AT&T to produce the 

notes of the investigation conducted by Eldean Thovson prior to 

plaintiff's termination. These documents contained the statements 

of two AT&T employees alleging the sale and use of drugs by other 

employees on company premises. Because of the sensitive nature of 

these statements, AT&T substituted the letters "X" and "Y" for the 

names of these two employees. The district court refused to 

compel AT&T to reveal the actual identities of these two employees 

because this information would be relevant only if plaintiff's 

drug use was raised at trial. This matter was in fact not 

discussed at trial. 

Plaintiff contends she was entitled to discovery of this 

information because she believes the accusations of drug 

involvement influenced the investigation leading to her 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1238 Document: 010110031729 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 4 
1 termination. However, plaintiff's cause of action against AT&T 

was based on discriminatory and retaliatory discharge. The 

question whether she was involved in drugs is irrelevant to the 

question whether she was terminated because of her gender or 

because she exercised her protected rights. Plaintiff did not 

assert a state law claim for wrongful termination. We cannot see 

how not knowing the identities of these two witnesses prevented 

plaintiff from proving her claims for discriminatory and 

retaliatory discharge. 

Plaintiff asserts the individuals who made the statements 

concerning her drug use may have been motivated by gender bias. 

She claims that because AT&T may have relied on these statements 

in making the decision to terminate plaintiff, she may have in 

fact been terminated because of sex discrimination. Plaintiff 

claims she is therefore entitled to discover X and Y's identities 

to permit her to determine if their statements were motivated by 

gender bias. 

The record, however, indicates AT&T did not rely on X and Y's 

statements in making its decision to terminate plaintiff. Even if 

X and Y's statements were motivated by gender bias, this would not 

prove plaintiff was a victim of sex discrimination because her 

termination was not related to these statements. See Keyes~ 

Lenoir Rhyne College, 552 F.2d 579, 581 (4th Cir.) (plaintiff in 

sex discrimination suit not entitled to discovery of confidential 

evaluations on which defendant did not rely in deciding to 

terminate plaintiff), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 904 (1977). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1238 Document: 010110031729 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 5 
Finally, we conclude the district court's order sealing 

plaintiff's motion to reconsider was not an abuse of discretion. 

See Shirley Y.!.. Chestnut, 603 F.2d 805, 807 (10th Cir. 1979). 

Early in this litigation, plaintiff and AT&T jointly moved for a 

protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(c)(7), which was granted. Under this order, the parties were 

required to seal documents containing confidential information, 

including "trade secrets, confidential or privileged commercial, 

employment or financial information ••.• " Plaintiff's motion 

to reconsider, which included quotations from AT&T documents 

marked confidential, was not filed under seal. These quotations 

involved employees' allegations concerning illegal use and sale of 

drugs on company property and the sexual habits of other 

employees. We agree with the district court ·that this information 

was entitled to protection under the protective order. Moreover, 

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how she was prejudiced in any 

way by the order to seal the motion for reconsideration. We 

AFFIRM. 

-6-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1238 Document: 010110031729 Date Filed: 04/03/1991 Page: 6