Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00463/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00463-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alabama Department of Finance
Defendant
Kenneth W. Barnett
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH W. BARNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2-11-cv-463-MEF

) (WO—Do not publish)

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

FINANCE, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This cause comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

#30) filed by the plaintiff, Kenneth Barnett, and the Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. # 36) filed by the defendant, the Alabama Department of Finance

(ADOF). The Magistrate Judge, after considering these motions, submitted a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. # 50) recommending this Court deny Barnett’s motion and grant

the ADOF’s motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Report and Recommendation

will be ADOPTED IN PART and MODIFIED IN PART. It will be ADOPTED as to the

factual findings developed by the Magistrate Judge and as to the recommended outcome.

The report will be modified, however, so as to clarify the basis for granting summary

judgment in favor of the ADOF. More specifically, the Court will note how the 180-day

rule bars Barnett’s sex and age discrimination claims and how the Report and

Recommendation, though applying the wrong standard, correctly recommended granting

1

Case 2:11-cv-00463-MEF-WC Document 54 Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 4
summary judgment on those claims, even assuming Barnett filed them timely. The Court,

moreover, will adopt the Report and Recommendation as to Barnett’s retaliation claim

without reservation.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Barnett’s failure to file his complaint in a timely manner

As the Magistrate Judge noted, Barnett did not timely file his complaint with the

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC). (See Doc. # 50 at 7 n.6.) As a

general rule, “the time for filing an EEOC charge begins to run when the employee

receives unequivocal notice of the adverse employment decision.” Grayson v. K-Mart

Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1100 n.19 (11th Cir. 1996); see also 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(A);

Wright v. AmSouth Bancorporation, 320 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2003) (applying

180-day rule to ADEA claim). Here, the employment action Barnett complains of—the

ADOF’s decision to promote Elizabeth Fralish to Risk Management Supervisor over

him—occurred on October 30, 2009. Yet he waited until September 7, 2010—well over

180 days—to file a complaint with the EEOC. Therefore, his Title VII and ADEA

claims, to the extent that he alleges discrimination based on his employer’s decision not

to promote him, are untimely.

B. The standard for comparing a plaintiff’s qualifications to a comparator’s

Although the 180-day rule barred Barnett’s discrimination claims, the Magistrate

Judge evaluated the allegations on the merits, too. In doing so, he compared Barnett’s

qualifications to those of Fralish, asking whether the disparity in qualifications between

the two was “so apparent as virtually to jump off the page and slap you in the face.”

2

Case 2:11-cv-00463-MEF-WC Document 54 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 4
Cofield v. Goldkist, Inc., 267 F.3d 1264, 1268 (11th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court,

however, has made clear that courts should not apply the slap-you-in-the-face standard.

Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454, 457 (2006) (“The visual image of words

jumping off the page to slap you (presumably a court) in the face is unhelpful and

imprecise as an elaboration of the standard for inferring pretext from superior

qualifications.”). Thus the incorrect standard was applied in formulating the Report and

Recommendation.

Yet, given the dearth of pretext evidence produced by Barnett, the Magistrate

Judge reached the right result. The ADOF offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory

reason for hiring Fralish: they thought she had better qualifications, namely a degree in

Building Science and twenty-two years of experience evaluating structures. Barnett also

had a number of disciplinary issues during his time with the ADOF, which could have

led an employer to prefer Fralish over him for the job. These too amount to legitimate,

non-discriminatory reasons for choosing Fralish.

Barnett failed to rebut these reasons by showing that they amounted to nothing

more than pretext to conceal impermissible discrimination. He could have done so by

showing that the disparities in his and Fralish’s qualifications were “of such weight and

significance that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have

chosen” Fralish over him. See Lee v. GTE Fla., Inc., 226 F.3d 1249, 1253–54 (11th Cir.

2000). Or he could have pointed to “weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies,

incoherencies, or contradictions” in the ADOF’s proffered reasons, Brooks v. Cnty.

Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., 446 F.3d 1160, 1163 (11th Cir. 2006), or produced other

3

Case 2:11-cv-00463-MEF-WC Document 54 Filed 04/19/12 Page 3 of 4
evidence “which [would] permit[] the jury to reasonably disbelieve the employer’s

proffered reason,” Steger v. Gen. Elec. Co., 318 F.3d 1066, 1079 (11th Cir. 2003). He did

none of these things. Accordingly, his claims fail and granting summary judgment in

favor of the ADOF is proper.

C. Barnett’s retaliation claim

The portion of the Report and Recommendation advising the Court to grant

summary judgment in the ADOF’s favor applied the proper standards. That part of the

report will thus be adopted in full.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 50) is

ADOPTED IN PART and MODIFIED IN PART as discussed above.

2. Barnett’s Strong Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 53)

is OVERRULED.

3. Barnett’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 30) is DENIED.

4. The ADOF’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 36) is

GRANTED.

A separate final judgment will be forthcoming.

Done this the 19 day of April, 2012.

th

/s/ Mark E. Fuller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 2:11-cv-00463-MEF-WC Document 54 Filed 04/19/12 Page 4 of 4