Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01974/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01974-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria S. Archuleta
Appellant
City of Albuquerque
Appellee

Document Text:

MARIA S. 

v. 

CITY OF 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ARCHULETA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) No. 

FI LED 

Uoirt"Cf Srates Court of Appeals 

Temb Circuit 

JAN 8- 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

88-1974 

) ( D. C. No. 86-1336-M) 

ALBUQUERQUE, ) ( D • N .M.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, District Judge, United · States District 

Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate ·record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1974 Document: 01019959015 Date Filed: 01/08/1990 Page: 1 
Maria s. Archuleta filed this Title VII employment 

discrimination case, complaining of discriminatory nonhiring and 

later discriminatory firing from a probationary job with the 

Albuquerque Public Library. At trial, Ms. Archuleta attempted to 

establish discrimination based on national origin as evidenced by 

her accent. Ms. Archuleta appeals after trial to the court in 

which the City of Albuquerque prevailed. On appeal, she claims 

numerous errors in the district court's findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. We affirm. 

Ms. Archuleta is a naturalized American citizen who was born 

in Honduras. She received her education and library experience in 

Honduras before immigrating to the United States. Apparently, she 

was a school librarian in Honduras. After she moved to 

Albuquerque she worked as a "page" with the city library's 

bookmobile, a clerical, part-time position. During her work as a 

page, she applied for every job opening posted by the Albuquerque 

Public Library. She was interviewed but was rejected for each 

job. After she complained to the EEOC concerning her multiple 

rejections, the library hired her for the next available opening, 

that for a branch library clerk. After a short training period 

and only a few months as a probationary employee, she was 

terminated from the position. Her supervisors based their 

decision to release her on her inability to complete the job's 

functions, due to her difficulty with the English language. Ms. 

Archuleta then brought this lawsuit. 

The ultimate question of discrimination is generally 

considered a finding of fact, see United States Postal Serv. Bd. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1974 Document: 01019959015 Date Filed: 01/08/1990 Page: 2 
of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-15 (1983), and is thus 

subject on review to the clearly erroneous standard. This circuit 

has held: 

We may not set aside trial court findings and 

determinations on appeal unless they are clearly 

erroneous. 

[F]indings are not to be determined clearly eironeous 

unless, after a review of the entire record, we are left 

with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been made. As an appellate court, it is not for us to 

determine whether the trial court reached the correct 

decision, but whether it reached a permissible one in 

light of the evidence. 

EEOC v. General Lines, Inc., 865 F.2d 1555, 1558 (10th Cir. 

1989)(quoting Higgins v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Sec. 

Comm'n, 642 F.2d 1199, 1202 (10th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). 

However, such findings based on an erroneous application of law 

are reviewable de novo as questions of law. Pullman-Standard v. 

Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287-88 (1982); Harvey v. United Transp. 

Union, 878 F.2d 1235, · 1244 (10th Cir. 1989). 

After a thorough study of the record on appeal, we find 

evidentiary support for each of the factual findings about which 

Ms. Archuleta complains. Ms. Archuleta presented conflicting 

testimony as to some of these findings, but the district court was 

in the best position to weigh conflicting evidence. Although one 

could quibble with the phraseology of some subparts of the 

findings of fact, the errors, if any, are too minor to be 

dispositive, and do not rise to the level of reversible error, 

~ven if viewed cumulatively. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1974 Document: 01019959015 Date Filed: 01/08/1990 Page: 3 
In addition, after independent legal research and review of 

the authorities cited by Ms. Archuleta, we conclude that the 

district court was not in error in its conclusions of law. Ms. 

Archuleta . failed to establish the prima facie ~lements of her 

claim of unlawful discrimination based on national origin. 

Ms. Archuleta failed to establish a prima facie case because 

she failed to establish that she was qualified for the job. In 

both her job interviews and training, her lack of fluency in 

English, both in communicating and in understanding what was said 

to her, proved to be so acute as to disqualify her for the 

positions which she sought. Although the burden of proof for Ms. 

Archuleta was not onerous, Texas Department of Community Affairs 

v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981), Ms. Archuleta did not 

present evidence sufficient to satisfy even a minimal burden. 

Even if we were to disagree with the district court and find 

that Ms. Archuleta had established a prima facie case, the City of 

Albuquerque presented sufficient evidence, unchallenged by Ms. 

Archuleta, that the initial decisions not to hire Ms. Archuleta 

for any of the twelve positions for which she applied, and 

ultimately to discharge her from the probationary position in 

which she was placed, were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory 

reasons. Ms. Archuleta was not capable of performing her 

employment duties because of her i~ability to comprehend and 

communicate in the English language. This is a legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory reason for declining to hire her for certain 

positions and for terminating her employment as a branch library 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1974 Document: 01019959015 Date Filed: 01/08/1990 Page: 4 
clerk. See Fragante v. City and County of Honolulu, 888 F.2d 591 

(1989)(the ability to communicate clearly in the.English language 

· is a legitimate occupational qualification). Ms. Archuleta failed 

to establish in rebuttal that this reason was pretextual. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-1974 Document: 01019959015 Date Filed: 01/08/1990 Page: 5