Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08058/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julie M. Chavez
Appellant
The University of Wyoming
Appellee

Document Text:

4 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR~ 199 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JULIA M. CHAVEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-8058 and 

No. 89-8061 

(D.C. No. C88-085J) 

( D. Wyo.) 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

Julia M. Chavez appeals from the district court's judgment 

denying her claim of discrimination under the Age Discrimination 

Act and Title VII. Chavez contends that she was prevented from 

fairly conducting her case and that the judgment is not supported 

by the evidence. 

* 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: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 1 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 1 
We find that the jury's verdict is adequately supported by 

the evidence and that Chavez has not alleged passion, prejudice, 

or other jury misconduct that would require the verdict in the age 

discrimination action to be set aside. We also find that the 

district court's well reasoned and thorough opinion adequately 

addresses all of the issues raised by Chavez in her appeal on the 

sex discrimination/national origin issues. We decline appellee's 

invitation to impose sanctions. 

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and AFFIRM for substantially the reasons set forth in 

the district court's order. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 2 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 2 
,. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cob~± 

JULIE M. CHAVEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF 

WYOMING, 

Defendant. 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING ,.; -·,;, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. C88-0085J 

, -

· .. 

... 

' ' 

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER 

- ! ·' 

... . . . ~ 

THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER came on for trial pursuant to previous setting, commencing on Wednesday , May 24, 1989; and the 

plaintiff appearing in person and by and through her couns e l, 

Kennard F. Nelson, and the defendant appearing through its representative and through counsel, Bruce N. Willoughby and R. R. 

Bostwick; and the court having heard the testimony of all witnesses and having examined the documents that have been received 

as evidence; makes the following findings of fact and conclusions 

of law. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. The plaintiff, Julie M. Chavez, is a 48-year~old 

Mexican-American female. She is a member of a prot e cted class 

under Titles VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 

1 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 3 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 3 
2000e et seq. and of a protected class under the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 

2. In August 1987, the defendant became aware that two 

positions for custodians in the University of Wyoming's Physical 

Plant Department were available. Advertisements for the positions were posted by the University's Personnel Department, which 

reflected the minimum qua lifications for custodians. Plaintiff's 

Exhibit 6. On August 20, 1987, plaintiff Julie M. Chavez submitted her application for employment in one of the available custodial positions to the personnel department. Plaintiff's Exhibit 

1 . 

3. The minimum qualifications for consideration for employment as a custodian in the physical plant are as follows: 

Minimum qualifications: two years of high school or 

equivalent. Knowledge of cleaning methods, techniques, 

materials and equipment. Ability to perform manual 

tasks requiring moderate physical strength. Ability to 

follow oral and written instructions. Stable work 

history. Prefer at least six months of previous custodial experience . Please note that the hours of work are 

Monday throug h Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. 

Closing date for applications is September 2, 1987. 

Plaintiff's Exh ibit 6. 

4. The classification description for the job of custodian, 

plaintiff's Exhibit 5, requires that the custodian perform custodial duties according to established standards for cleaning and 

maintaining University buildings and facilities. The characteristic duties and responsibilities are set forth as follows: 

2 

/ 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 4 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 4 
Sweep, damp mop, spray buff, strip and wax floors; 

vacuum, shampoo, and spot clean carpets. 

Clean and dust furniture, fixtures, walls, doors, trim, 

and exhibit cases; wax and polish furniture and fixtures 

as necessary. 

Clean restrooms, fixtures, and maintain an adequate supply of towels, soap, and the like, may clean and/or wash 

kitchen supplies and equipment if required of position 

Wash windows and door glass; may wash and dust Venetian 

blinds. 

Replace light bulbs and clean light fixtures. Provide 

trash removal; maintain clean and lined trash 

containers. Clean drinking fountains, ashtrays, 

blackboards, and pencil sharpeners. Keep walkways to 

designated buildings free of snow and debris. Perform 

occasional moving tasks as required. Notify supervisor 

of damaged or missing furniture, fixtures, and the like. 

Operate and ins ure proper use of custodial equipment. 

May secure designated building at end 0£ shift. 

5. The custodians, who work for defendant's physical plant 

department, work and are assigned to work under the supervision 

of individuals known as zone supervisors and assistant zone 

supervisors. There are approximately six zones. As shown on 

Exhibit 6 and plaintiff's Exhibit 9, each zone is operated in two 

shifts for custodians, i.e. from 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and from 

3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. When custodians are terminated or resign 

from their positions within a particular zone and arrangements 

are made for the selection of new employees to fill the vacant 

position or a new position that may be created, the zone supervisor is appointed by the custodial manager to a search committee. 

The zone supervisors and their assistants work under the supervision of the custodial manager and his assistant. Roger Ball was 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 5 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 5 
~ . I 

the manager of custodial services from May 1986 through October 

1988 at the University of Wyoming. The custodial department had 

115 employees and responsibility for a clean, safe environment 

for faculty, students, staff and the public. Mr. Ball moved to a 

similar position at Clemson University and has been replaced by 

Bernadine Roybal. Ms. Roybal's assistant is John Chavez, who 

formerly was employed in custodial services as a zone supervisor. 

Mr. Chavez is the former husband of the plaintiff. 

6. At pertinent times to this litigation, the manager of 

custodial services, Roger Ball, utilized the following procedure 

for hiring custodians in the defendant's physical plant 

department. When a position within a custod ial zone is available 

by reason of resignation or termination of a custodian, the zone 

supervisor notifies the custodial services man a ger. The needs 

within the custodial services department are communicated to the 

personnel office of the University. If the positions can be justified and continued funding is available, the personnel office 

acts to post advertisements for the positions to be filled on 

campus and in local newspapers. Applicants are directed to apply 

for employment through the Personnel Services Offices on campus. 

Julie Chavez submitted her application for employment, 

(plaintiff's Exhibit 1), on August 20, 1987. Applications for 

employment in the Custodial Services Department are forwarded to 

the custodial manager by the University Personnel Office. 

The custodial manager appoints a searc h committee, composed 

of zone s upervisors , assistant zone supervisors, or custodians , 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 6 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 6 
to intervi ew applicants who meet the minimum qualifications. 

Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. Normally zone supervis ors who have positions to be filled are appointed to the search committee. Under 

manager Ball a practice arose where two females and two males 

were appointed to the search committee. Typically, a zone supervisor who supervised a zone with an open position was selected to 

chair the search committee by the custodial manager. 

After selecting the app licants possessing the minimum qualifications, the names of the qualified applicants are given to the 

chairman of the search committee, who contacts the applicants, 

sets up times for interviews, of the applicants by the search 

committee . Interview questions are preprinted on an intervi ew 

form and presented to each member of the committee. Certain 

questions are assigned among the members of the search committee 

and the same member will ask the same questions to each 

interviewee. Thus each person being interviewed is subj e cted to 

the same questions, posed by the same member of the search 

committee. Plaintiff's Exhibits 7, 9, 10, and 11; and 

defendant's exhibits A, B, C, and D. Each interview question has 

an assigned point value and the interviewers assign a grade to 

each response after it is made. At the conclusion of each 

intervi ew , each member of the search committee totals his or her 

score for that candidate and e nters it as a total at the end of 

the interview questionnaire. Id. After all interviews of candidates are completed, the scores assigned to each interviewee by 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 7 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 7 
each member of the search committee are totaled. The applicant 

who receives the highest total score awarded by all members of 

the search committee is offered the open position (s ). With 

regard to the selection of custodians in September, 1987, the 

interview questi.onnaire contained 17 questions. The total scoring range was from zero to a perfect score of 34 points. By way 

of example, if a candidate received a perfect score of 34 from 

each member of the search committee, his or her total score at 

the end of all interviews would be 136 (34 plus 34 plus 34 plus 

34). 

7. The object of the selection process employed by the custodial manager is to obtain custodial employees who have experience as a custodian, technical knowledge of custodial methods and 

equipment, oral communication skills, and an ability to read 

technical material related to the cleaning materials and equipment used in the custodial services department. As noted by 

plaintiff, the impressions of the applicants and the perceptions 

of the members of the search committee inevitably influence the 

ratings that were assigned to each interviewee. Generally it was 

conceded that these ratings were often within a four or five 

point s pread over a possible total of 136 points. 

8. When the period for applications closed on September 2, 

1987, Gary Lee Thomas, Zone Supervisor for Zone II, was assigned 

the responsibility to act as chairman of the search committee by 

the custodial services manager, Roger Ball. Mr. Ball asked Mr. 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 8 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 8 
Thomas to interview all qualified applicants and to see that they 

were notified and scheduled for interviews on September 3 and 4, 

1987. Thirty-nine applicants, including plaintiff, had applied 

for the two open positions . After screening from minimum 

qualifications, 24 applicants, including plaintiff, were determined to meet the minimum qualifications for the position, and 

were accordingly selected for an interview. The remainder of the 

39 applicants, although minimally qualified, for one reason or 

another, chose not to participate in their interview. 

Plaintiff's Exhibit 8. 

9. The plaintiff was scheduled to be interviewed for a custodian position on September 4, 1987. The makeup of the interview panel or search committee in this case was unique. Because 

custodial zone supervisors, Gary Thomas and Myron Tarbell, each 

had openings to be filled from the list of applicants, they were , 

pursuant to custom, appointed as members of the search committee 

by Mr. Ball with Gary Thomas being appointed as the chairman. 

Mr. Ball also selected Sharron Rhoads, who was at that time the 

assistant zone supervisor in the zone which was s upe r vised by the 

plaintiff's husband, John Chavez. The plaintiff, Julie Chavez, 

was acquainted with Mike and Rosi e Tarbell. Rosie Tarbell was 

and is a close friend of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was 

informed through Rosie Tarbell that an opening would occur in 

Myron Tarbell's zone. With this information, the plaintiff 

arranged meetings with Myron "Mike" Tarbell and submitted her 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 9 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 9 
application at Personnel Services. According to Paul Adams, the 

assistant supervisor for Tarbell's zone, Myron Tarbell assisted 

Julie Chavez in filling out her application and discussed the job 

with Julie Chavez. Chavez was observed to have visited two or 

three times at Mr. Tarbell's office prior to the interviews. 

After the initial screening search committee was appointed, Myron 

Tarbell became uneasy due to the presence of Sharron Rhoads on 

the committee. This uneasiness on the part of Myron Tarbell was 

based upon his perception that a close and intimate friendship 

existed between Sharron Rhoads and the plaintiff's estranged 

husband, John Chavez. According to Tarbell, John Chavez 

approached him the day before the interviews and said that he 

(Tarbell) was not to hire Julie. ''She is a troublemaker." With 

his concerns about committeeperson Rhoads in mind, Mr. Tarbell 

sought to remedy his concerns by changing the makeup of the 

search committee. He called another zone supervisor, Gloria 

Youmans, who was on vacation. By his own admission, Tarbell 

asked Youmans to help and asked Youmans to serve on the search 

committee because he was not sure that things "would go as they 

should." According to Youmans, she did not have a social relationship with the plaintiff. After Tarbell called Youmans, Adams 

overheard Tarbell informing plaintiff that he "took steps" to 

neutralize Rhoads. Vicki Stickley, a former employee from Myron 

Tarbell's zone noted the visits of Julie Chavez with Mr. Tarbell 

that occurred two or three times during the week after Stickley 

had given her two-week notice. 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 10 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 10 
- As a result of Mryon Tarbell's request, Gloria Youmans went 

to Roger Ball and requested his permission to serve on the search 

committee during the interview process. Mr. Ball, the manager, 

did not object and in this way the search committee was composed 

of Myron Tarbell, Gloria Youmans, Sharron Rhoads and Gary Thomas 

(chairman). Throughout the interviews Roger Ball sat in as an 

observer, but did not vote, ask questions, or comment. 

10. The interviews were conducted over a two-day period. 

Plaintiff was interviewed on September 4, 1987. Following completion of the interviews of all applicants, Roger Ball excused 

Myron Tarbell and Gloria Youmans from the room. Mr. Tarbell 

thought this was unusual in that in other interviews in which he 

had been a participant, he had remained after the interviews were 

completed and assisted in the totaling of scores. In this 

instance he returned to his regular job as zone supervisor and 

Gloria Youmans also left. According to Roger Ball and Sharron 

Rhoads she was asked to remain by Mr. Ball for approximately ten 

minutes because Mr. Ball had detected an error on the interview 

questionnaire that Sharron Rhoads had completed with regard to 

Julie Chavez. Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and Defendant's Exhibit C. 

Ball had noticed that Rhoads had failed to properly score and had 

failed to properly total the plaintiff's score. According to 

Ball plaintiff's score was increased by one point when properly 

added up. It is also noted on the interview questionnaire that 

Sharron Rhoads had made a correction to her scoring of Question 

9 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 11 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 11 
. ' 

No. 15. After she corrected her score, Sharron Rhoads was 

excused to return to work. Chairman Thomas and Manager Ball 

remained, computed the totals of all scores from the search committee members, and ranked the applicants according to score. 

Th e information with regard to all 39 applicants and the interview scores compiled by the twenty-four applicants who were 

interviewed, is reflected in plaintiff's Exhibit 8, which was 

prepared by Roger C. Ball and typed by a secretary within the 

physical plant department. Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 is an affirmative action activity report. The range of scores extended from 

129 as the highest score to an interview score o f 68. The highest scores are as follows: 

Interview Score 

129 

128 

127 

124 

123 

119 

Applicant 

Barnett, Thomas R. 

James, Charlotte M. 

Ricca, Anthony 

Talbot, Richard 

Chavez, Julie M. 

Eckhardt, Thomas F. 

Race/sex 

white male 

white female 

white male 

white male 

mino r ity female 

white male 

The plaintiff received perfect scores of 34 from Myron Tarbell 

and Gloria Youmans. The chairman, Mr. Thomas, awarded the plaintiff a score of 27, and Sharron Rhoads awarded plaintiff a score 

of 28. Thomas Barnett and Charlotte James, who scored highest, 

were awarded the custodian jobs. Thomas Barnett was working in 

Gloria Youmans's zone. Gloria Youmans had previously written a 

letter of recommendation supporting Mr. Barnett's application. 

The plaintiff received the fifth highest score in the interview 

process. 

10 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 12 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 12 
•' ~ 

) 

11. After waiting several days, the plaintiff went to Mr. 

Balls' office to discuss her situation. There is a dispute as to 

the post-interview conversation between the plaintiff and Ball. 

Plaintiff states that she was advised at a first meeting with Mr. 

Ball that she did not receive a job, but after talking to Myron 

Tarbell and Rosie Tarbell about her non-selection, plaintiff 

wrote a letter to the labor commissioner, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, 

and again met Ball in his office demanding that he offer reassurance that plaintiff would obtain employment. Plaintiff asserts 

that Mr. Ball said that she would not receive consideration 

because she had filed a grievance with the labor commissioner. 

Mr. Ball states that plaintiff called and came to his office following the intervi e w process to ask if she had received a job. 

Ball informed her that she had not been selected but had been 

placed in a pool of the top applicants. The effect of be ing 

placed in the pool was explained to the plaintiff. Mr. Ball 

reported that plaintiff indicated during her conversation with 

him that if she filed a grievance, 0 ••• it would be worse for 

you (Ball). 0 

12. A selection pool system was established to fill vacancies which occurred in evening shift hours (3:00 p.m.-11:30 p.m. 

between September 14, 1987, and October 23, 1987.) Individuals 

who were ranked third through sixth in the interview process in 

which plaintiff participated were subject to call in order to 

fill vacancies, which occurred while the pool was open. The 

11 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 13 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 13 
description of the pool is found in Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, a letter from Roger Ball, addressed to Ms. Julie M. Chavez, dated 

September 14, 1987. 

13. Plaintiff filed a grievance and complaint with the 

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on 

September 23, 1987. Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. 

14. On February 19, 1988, plaintiff received notice from the 

Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice that she had 

the right to institute a civil action under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Suit was filed in the United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming within 90 days of 

plaintiff's receipt of notice. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. 

15. Events transpired after plaintiff's complaint to the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which are also the 

subject of her complaint under Title VII. As a result of her 

selection as one of the two highest scoring applicants, Charlotte 

James was employed as a custodian for the University of Wyoming, 

accepted employment, and embarked upon her work in Zone 2, supervised by Mr. Thomas. Charlotte James worked as a custodian 

through October 6, 1987. During a telephone conversation between 

Mr. Thomas and Ms. James on October 8, 1987, James reported that 

she would not be returning to work. According to Mr. Thomas, 

James said that she would not explain the reasons on the telephone but would come in to work and explain the reasons why she 

wished to resign and deliver her resignation. Mr. Ball testified 

12 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 14 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 14 
that there were concerns about Charlotte James as a result of 

complications from a measles shot. Charlotte James did not 

return to work, and she did not deliver an explanation or written 

resignation. Gary Thomas urged Ms. James to come to him in order 

that he could discuss her work situation and possibly work out 

any problem that she may have had, avoiding termination. As a 

result Mr. Thomas did not immediately act to fill the position 

occupied by Ms. James. No request to fill the position was submitted to the personnel office through the custodial manager, Mr. 

Ball. At the time that Ms. James abandoned her position, the 

University was subject to a hiring freeze; and before a vacant 

position was filled by the next qualified applicant from the 

pool, authorization was to be obtained from the defendants' personnel office. The plaintiff was not offered the position which 

was abandoned by Charlotte James, although plaintiff was the next 

person to be selected from the pool. University procedures for 

termination of employment commenced following an unexplained 

absence of three days from work. 

16. The selection pool with plaintiff's name in it closed 

(terminated) on October 23, 1987. As a result, the plaintiff was 

not selected to replace Charlotte James. Instead, the selection 

process commenced again and following interviews of applicants 

and ranking of their scor es , Paul Borgy was hired by the custodial department to replace Charlotte James. 

, 

17. Although Gloria Youmans accuses Roger Ball as having 

hired only young pretty women, such a hiring practice is not sup13 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 15 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 15 
ported by the record. Myron Tarbell asserted and noted on his 

scoring sheet that the plaintiff was a "minority woman in the 

protected age group." He testified that in late October 1987, he 

spoke to Mr. Ball and complained that Mr. Ball was overlooking 

older people, warning him that this would cause problems. 

18. Jesse Vialpando is employed by the University as its employment practices officer. He is responsible for affirmative action 

under Executive Order 11246 and develops analysis for affirmative 

action compliance. He monitors hiring practices, including preferences for veterans and handicapped persons. He acts as liaiso n 

between the University and the State of Wyoming and federal regulatory agenc ies concerning employment, and he performs dispute 

resolution in accordance with University regulations. Mr. 

Vialpando testified that based upon an availability analysis conducted by his office, women and minority members were not f o und 

to be underutilized in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988; and that women and 

minorities were not underutilized within the University of 

Wyoming physical plant for the same years. 

19. On March 23, 1988, plaintiff timely filed a complaint in 

this court alleging unlawful discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that plaintiff had applied 

for the position of custodian at defendant's physical plant and 

was not hired because of her age, sex, and national origin. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et~- and 29 U.S.C. § 621 

et~-

14 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 16 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 16 
20. The Qlaintiff and the defendant have stipulated that had 

plaintiff been employed by the University of Wyoming as a 

custodian, her mitigated earnings, including benefits to the date 

of trial, were $8,119.98. 

21. The court finds that the interview process conducted by 

the physical plant was fair and impartial and that the questions 

were asked of all the applicants regardless of sex, national 

origin, or age; that the questions were for the most part job 

related for the purpose of selecting custodians who had custodial 

experience, and ability to interact with other custodians and 

supervisors, and the ability to perform custodial work. 

22. The person selected for the custodian positions were 

qualified both by experience and job knowledge. Julie Chave z was 

also qualified by experience and job knowledge to work as a 

custodian. 

23. The decision of the intervi ew committee, based upon 

records of the interviews, was not discriminatory to the plaintiff as a female and Mexican-American. 

23. Although Charlotte James vacated her position, notifying 

her direct supervisor on October 8 that she wouldn't be returning 

to work, and it further appearing that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Ball 

failed to act to fill the vacancy until after the pool was terminated and dissolved; nevertheless, it has not been shown and the 

court is unable to find from the evidence that this occurre d 

because Julie Chavez is female or a minority member or that the 

15 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 17 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 17 
action was taken because she had filed a complaint with the 

Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 

2201, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Venue is proper 

because the acts complained of took place within the District of 

Wyoming. 

2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e makes it" an unlawful employment practice for an 

employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with 

respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 

employment, because of an individual's race, color, religion, 

sex, or national origin, or (2) to limit, segregate or classify 

his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would 

deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee 

because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin." 

3. Defendant is an employe r under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). 

4. The purpose behind Title VII is to "assure e~uality of 

employment opportunities and to eliminate those discriminatory 

practices and devices which have fostered racially stratified job 

16 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 18 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 18 
I.. 

environments to the disadvantage of minority citizens." 

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973). 

Se e also Livingston v. Roadway Express, Inc., 802 F.2d 1250, 1251 

(10th Cir. 1986); Carino v. University of Oklahoma Board of 

Re gents, 750 F.2d 815, 818 (10th Cir. 1984). 

5. Plaintiff has brought her claims of discrimination on 

the basis of sex or national origin on theories of disparate 

treatment. The central focus in a disparate treatment case is 

whether the employer is treating ''some people less favorably than 

others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national 

o r igin." Proof of discriminatory motive is critical. Teamst ers 

v. Uni ted States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 n.15 (1977). See also Fire 

Fighte r s , Inc. for Racial Equality v. Bach, 731 F.2d 664 667 n.3 

(10th Ci r . 1984). 

6. The factual inquiry in a Title VII case is whether 

" defendant intentionally discriminate d against a plaintiff." 

United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 

U.S. 711, 715 (1983) and (quoting Texas Department of Community 

Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981)). Thus, the court 

must d e t ermine wh e ther "the employer is tr e ating 'some peopl e 

l e ss fa vor a bly than others because of their race, color, 

religion, s ex , or national origin.'" (Emphasis supplied.) 

Ai ken s, 460 U.S. 715 (quoting Furnco Construction Corp. v. 

Waters , 438 U.S. 567, 577 (1978)). 

7 . In McDonnell Douglas, the Court announced the order and 

al l ocat ion o f proof in a priva t e , non - class action alleging 

17 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 19 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 19 
v 

employment discrimination. First, a Title VII plaintiff must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of 

discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the 

prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the different 

treatment. Third, if defendant meets this burden, plaintiff must 

then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were 

not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. 

Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-256 (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. 

at 802-4). See also Pitre v. Western Electric Company, Inc., 843 

F.2d 1262, 1265-66 (10th Cir. 1988); Vierniero v. Air Force 

Academy School District No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 

8. To establish the initial prima facie case, a plaintiff 

must show different treatment that gives rise to an inference of 

unlawful discrimination. This showing must be by a preponderance 

of the evidence. The showing required is not onerous. Burdine, 

450 U.S. at 253-54. The prima facie case "raises an inference of 

discrimination only because we presume these acts, if otherwise 

unexplained, are more likely than not bas e d on the consideration 

of impermissible factors." Furnco Construction Corp., 438 U.S. 

at 577. 

9. If plaintiff succeeds in showing the prima facie case, a 

rebuttable presumption of discrimination arises. Aikens, 460 

U.S. at 714. A defendant rebuts this presumption by raising a 

18 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 20 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 20 
genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against 

plaintiff. A defendant meets this burden by explaining nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Placing this burden of 

production on a defendant frames the factual issue with sufficient clarity so plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity 

to demonstrate pretext. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255-56. A 

defendant does not have to prove the absence of a discriminatory 

motive, but must only articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the different treatment. Board of 

Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24, 25 

(1978). Once a defendant employer offers evidence tending to 

show valid reasons f or its actions, the McDonnell-Burdine presumption drops from the case, and the court is in a position to 

decide the ultimate factual issue--whic h party's explanation of 

the employer's motivation it believes. Poolah v. City of 

Andarko, Oklahoma, 738 F.2d 364, 367 (10th Cir. 1984); cert. 

denied, 469 U.S. 1108 (1985); Wilson v. State of Oklahoma, 726 

F.2d 636, 637 (10th Cir. 1984). 

10. If a defendant sufficiently rebuts the presumption a 

plaintiff must be given an opportunity to show the proffered r ea -

son is pretextual. Furnco Construction, 438 U.S. at 578. 

11. The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that 

the defendant intentionally discriminated against plaintiff 

remains at all times with the plaintiff. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 

253 (citing Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney, 

439 U.S. 24, 25 n.2 (1978)). 

19 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 21 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 21 
12. After plaintiff had presented her case, this court found 

that a prima facie case existed. This, however, is not equivalent to a factual finding of discrimination. Furnco Construction 

Corp., 438 U.S. at 579-80. 

13. Direct evidence is not necessary to establish gender 

discrimination in employment. Discrimination is generally established by circumstantial evidence. Wilson, 726 F.2d at 637 

(citing Aikens, 460 U.S. at 717). 

14. The defendant rebuts the resulting inference of discriminatory animus by offering a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-56 (citing 

McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-04). 

15. The court heard the testimony of witnesses produced by 

each of the parties in this action and has examined all of the 

evidence that has been presented at the trial; and the court concludes that defendant did not discriminate against plaintiff on 

the basis of sex or national origin. 

(a) Activities of the Search Committee 

Plaintiff claims that she was not selected initially based 

upon her application and subsequent interviews by the Search 

Committee. The evidence, however, establishes that the methods 

employed by the Search Committee were non-discriminatory and the 

questions asked of each applicant were fair and intended generally to draw out information concerning the qualifications of 

each of the applicants and to give some idea as to their general 

20 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 22 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 22 
knowledge and ability to react to situations encountered during 

janitorial service on large buildings. No evidence was presented 

to the court that would indicate that the questions presented in 

any way focused on or tended to discriminate on the basis of sex 

or national origin. It is not contested that the plaintiff possessed sufficient qualifications by virtue of her previous experience on commercial buildings, helping her estranged husband 

maintain the Elks Club and a local bank: and plaintiff's previous 

work over a period of many years cleaning homes of third-parties 

bore favorably upon her qualification for a custodial job and was 

considered by each member of the Search Committee. However, 

there is no evidence that establishes that other persons who 

applied in August, 1987, lacked qualification for this work. No 

evidence was submitted indicating that the other top applicants 

were not qualified. The top qualifying applicant, Mr. Burnett, 

had been employed for three months within the custodial department under the supervision of Gloria Youmans, who found him to be 

well qualified and able to perform the work. 

The plaintiff was rated fifth out of 39 applicants . Due 

credit was given for her qualifications. The defendant has 

articulated legitimate reasons for plaintiff's non-selection, and 

the inference of discrimination is overcome. Verniero v. Air 

Force Academy Sch. Dist. No. 20 at 705 F.2d 392. 

(b) Closing of the pool on October 23, 1987 

With respect to plaintiff's claim that she was not selected 

to fill the vacancy left when Charlotte James suddenly abandoned 

21 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 23 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 23 
• 

her position as a custodian in Zone 2, the defendant has offered 

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the failure to employ 

the plaintiff. It is the function of the court to determine 

whether or not the business practices of the defendant are 

lawful, not to second-guess the business judgment of the 

employer. Verniero, 705 F.2d at 395. The evidence at this point 

simply demonstrates that with regard to replacement of Charlotte 

James, the process did not commence until after the pool in which 

the plaintiff was next in line was dissolved and no longer in 

force. 

(c) Panel members 

The panel members independently rated each of the 24 persons 

interviewed and their decisions reflected their independent 

judgment. All panel members asserted that their decisions did 

not reflect an intention to discriminate aga inst individuals on 

the basis of sex or national origin. Two of the panel members, 

Mr. Tarbell and Ms. Youmans deliberately gave the plaintiff a 

perfect score of 34. It is the opi nion of the undersigned that 

the scoring of Youmans and Tarbell as well as their testimony at 

trial illustrated a bias in favor of the plaintiff and against 

the defendant, which reflected adversely upon their testimony. 

The other members of the panel, Rhoads and Thomas, entered scores 

of 28 and 27 respectively. It should be noted that Rhoads 

increased her score by one point as a result of an addition error 

that was pointed out to her by Mr. Ball, who observed the activities of the Search Committee. 

22 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 24 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 24 
, 

16. Mr. Tarbell testified that he was concerned with regard 

to the activities of the Sea rch Committee because of the imminent 

divorce of the plaintiff and her husband, John Chavez, who was 

one of the zone supervisors in the custodial department and 

because of his perception that an intimate relationship exited 

between John Chavez and Sharron Rhoades. Mr. Tarbell testified 

that John Chavez had stated a preference that his estranged wife 

not work as a custodian, although evidence to the contrary was 

tendered by Mr. Ball. Mr. Tarbell also alleged that Mr. Chavez 

was involved in a romantic way with one of the Search Committee 

members, Sharron Rhoads. No questions concerning this relationship were directed during the trial to Sharron Rhoads or to John 

Chavez. Further, there was no direct testimony of observations 

that supported the assertion of Mr. Tarbell. However, if a relationship existed, and if because of that relationship, the activity of the Search Committee was influenced, this would reflect 

badly upon the selection process, but would not tend to demon -

strate that plaintiff was discriminated against because of her 

sex or national origin. Both Ms. Youmans and Mr. Tarbell 

express a continuing dissatisfaction and anger with the administration of the physical plant, based upon problems that they 

have had with their employment and upon their perception that the 

department has not responded to complaints or suggestions that 

they have made as to how discrimination perceived by them should 

be addressed . The court finds that the testimony of Mr. Ball and 

23 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 25 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 25 
.. 

Mr. Thomas with regard to the failure of the custodial department 

to select Ms. Chavez within the period following abandonment of 

the custodial 

Dated this 

position by Charlotte James to 

.,Z;--11/jay of June, 1989. 

'/ 

By the Court: 

be credible . 

:£STRICT JUDGE 

24 

WJLT.-JJ\l\,1 C. B"&U~AN 

om 

tq~c.-~. ~ ~ (..'1⁄4ai: 

Appellate Case: 89-8058 Document: 010110013841 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 26 Appellate Case: 89-8059 Document: 01019967207 Date Filed: 01/07/1991 Page: 26