Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01225/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01225-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 87-1225 

RUBY EBERT, CARLA EBERT, ) 

ESTHER C. EBERT, TEMPA ROSELIND ) 

EBERT, WILLA DEAN ATKINSON, and ) 

ILA M. BROWN, individually and ) 

on behalf of all others similarly ) 

situated, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LAMAR TRUCK PLAZA, a Colorado ) 

corporation, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

FILED 

Uttlted States Conrt of Appeals . Tenth Circuit 

JUN 2 31989 

ROBER'r L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 85-F-2518) 

Penfield W. Tate II of Trimble, Tate & Nulan, Denver, Colorado, 

for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

John Gehlhausen (Darla K. Scranton with him on the brief), Lamar, 

Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 87-1225 Document: 01019770503 Date Filed: 06/23/1989 Page: 1 
This is a case of alleged sex discrimination in the workplace. The issue on appeal is whether the critical findings of 

the district court are "clearly erroneous." Our study of the 

record convinces us that the record permits the several findings 

of the dis·trict court and giving, inter alia, due regard "to the 

opportunity of the trial court to judge ... the credibility of 

the witnesses," such findings are not "clearly erroneous." Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 52(a); Willner v. University of Kansas, 848 F.2d 1023, 

1030 (10th Cir. 1988) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 

470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)) .. 

In 1984, Lamar Truck Plaza, a Colorado corporation, opened a 

24-hour, full service restaurant in Lamar, Colorado. The 

plaintiffs in the present proceeding are five former employees, 

and one current ~mployee, all of whom were employed in the Lamar 

Truck Plaza restaurant. 

The plaintiffs alleged two claims for relief: (1) the 

defendant permitted and maintained a hostile workplace environment 

growing out of discriminatory sexual harassment, in violation of 

42 u.s.c. § 2000(e) et.~' and (2) the defendant discriminated 

against women in its pay scale, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 

29 u.s.c. § 206(d). 

In its findings the district court recognized that rough 

language by employees and supervisors alike was commonplace in the 

kitchen area at the Truck Plaza, noting that such language was 

used indiscriminately by both male and female employees, including 

certain of the plaintiffs. However, the district court held that 

such language, by itself, did not constitute a hostile workplace 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1225 Document: 01019770503 Date Filed: 06/23/1989 Page: 2 
environment based on sex harassment, citing Rabidue v. Osceola 

Refining Company, 584 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Mich. 1984). In Rabidue 

it was held that Title VII was not intended to cover language in 

the workplace that was ''rough hewn and vulgar," nor was Title VII 

designed "to bring about a magical transformation in the social 

mores of American workers." Id. at 430. 

At the same time, the district court recognized that under 

such cases as Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 66-67 

(1986), and Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 904 (11th Cir. 

1982), harassment based on sex which creates an offensive and 

hostile working environment is actionable under Title VII. In 

Meritor, the Supreme Court stated that although sex harassment in 

the workplace is actionable under Title VII, regardless of adverse 

economic impact, it must still be "sufficiently severe or 

pervasive 'to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment 

and create an abusive working environment.'" Meritor, 477 U.S. at 

67 (citing Henson, 682 F.2d at 904). 

Applying this standard in the instant case, the district 

court held that the plaintiffs had failed to meet that test of 

Meritor. . * Specifically, the district court found, inter alia, 

that the "use of foul language and alleged unwelcome touching 

were actually sparse," and not pervasive. The district court 

further found that when complaints were made to Lamar Truck Plaza 

* In Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406, 1413-14 (10th Cir. 

1987), we recognized the rule of Meritor and held that Title VII 

encompassed ''hostile work environment--sexual harassment" as well 

as "quid .E!.2 quo sexual harassment." · 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1225 Document: 01019770503 Date Filed: 06/23/1989 Page: 3 
management, management ''promptly" took appropriate corrective action. Whether this court would have made such findings is not the 

issue. We are not the fact finder. See Lujan v. Walters, 813 

F.2d 1051 (10th Cir. 1987); Augustine v. United States, 810 F.2d 

991 (10th Cir. 1987). Velez v. Metropolitan Life Insurance 

Company, 723 F.2d 7 (10th Cir. 1983). The question is whether the 

district court's finding is clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

52(a); Willner, 848 F.2d at 1030. We conclude it was not. 

As concerns the equal pay claim, the district court held that 

some, though not all, of the plaintiffs had made a prima facie 

showing that the defendant paid them less than it paid male 

employees doing substantially the same work. Applying the rule of 

such cases as McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 

(1973), ~nd Texas Department of Commu~ity Affairs v. Burdine, 450 

U.S. 248 (1981), the district court went· on to find that the 

defendant had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason 

for the pay differential. The defendant offered evidence, which 

was accepted by the district court, that a decision as to an 

individual's starting salary was not based on the applicant's sex, 

but was based on the strength of the employment application, the 

showing made at the personal interview, past experience, including 

whether the applicant had previously worked at a "truck-stop" 

operation, and whether a current employee had personal knowledge 

of the applicant's abilities. Additionally, at the time when the 

plaintiffs were hired, the defendant was just opening the 

restaurant and was hiring on an accelerated basis. The record 

permits the district court's finding that the defendant 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1225 Document: 01019770503 Date Filed: 06/23/1989 Page: 4 
articulated a nonpretextual legitimate business reason for its pay 

scale. 

Judgment affirmed. 

~5-

Appellate Case: 87-1225 Document: 01019770503 Date Filed: 06/23/1989 Page: 5