Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02198/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02198-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Central Record Service
Defendant
Margaret Sue Christian
Plaintiff

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

MARGARET SUE CHRISTIAN PLAINTIFF

 vs. CASE NO. 06-2198

CENTRAL RECORD SERVICE, INC. DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for

employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated by the

Defendant because of her race. The Defendant denies the

Plaintiff’s discrimination allegation and claims the Plaintiff

was terminated for excessive tardiness, excessive absences,

insubordination, complaints by fellow workers, text messaging,

talking on her cell phone, playing computer games, listening

to music and dancing when working, not following company

policies and poor job performance.

The matter is before the Court for decision following

trial to the Court on March 3, 2008. The following

constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT

During the trial, the following facts were established by

the evidence:

1. Plaintiff is an African-American. 

Case 2:06-cv-02198-RTD-JRM Document 39 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

2. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in various

positions from July 6, 2004 to February 24, 2006. 

3. Prior to July 6, 2004, the Plaintiff worked for the

Defendant through a temporary employment agency beginning

in September, 2002. 

4. During a period of time from September 1, 2005 through

February 24, 2006, the Plaintiff accumulated thirteen

(13) absences, ten (10) tardies, and there were eleven

(11) occasions where she left work early. 

5. Several of Defendant’s employees testified that the

Plaintiff was rude and intimidating to co-workers, used

profanity at work, stormed out of a meeting, was sent

home on at least two occasions to calm down, and

frequently talked on her cell phone, frequently played

computer games, frequently listened to music and danced

during business hours.

6. A former supervisor of the Plaintiff testified that the

Plaintiff would routinely refuse to comply with

directives and orders given by supervisors. 

7. Plaintiff received frequent reprimands during the last

year of her employment with the Defendant. 

8. Between October, 2005 and March, 2006, the Defendant

terminated eight (8) Caucasian employees for various

violations of company policy similar to those violations

Case 2:06-cv-02198-RTD-JRM Document 39 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

of the Plaintiff.

9. Plaintiff provided the Court with written statements of

three co-workers that did not testify during the trial.

While these statements were inadmissable, they were

reviewed by the Court. In the statements, the co-workers

state that Plaintiff was a good employee and was treated

unfairly by the Defendant, but the issue of race was

never mentioned.

10. Plaintiff had excessive tardies and absences, was

insubordinate, did not get along with fellow workers,

talked on her cell phone, played computer games, and

listened to loud music and danced when she should have

been working, did not follow company policies and

demonstrated poor work performance.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act alleging that she was racially

discriminated against by the Defendant. Specifically, the

Plaintiff claimed the Defendant terminated her employment

because she is African-American. In order to prevail on the

issue of liability for race discrimination, the Plaintiff must

establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) she was a

member of a protected class; (2) she was meeting the

employer’s legitimate job expectations; (3) she suffered an

Case 2:06-cv-02198-RTD-JRM Document 39 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

adverse employment action; and, (4) similarly situated

employees outside the protected class were treated

differently. Phillip v. Ford Motor Company, 413 F.3d 766, 768

(8th Cir. 2005). If the Plaintiff establishes a prima facie

case, the burden shifts to the Defendant to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the Plaintiff. Id. If

the Defendant satisfies this burden, Plaintiff must show that

Defendant’s reason is a pretext for intentional

discrimination. Id. Plaintiff always bears the burden of

proving that the adverse employment action was motivated by a

discriminatory animus. See St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks,

509 U.S. 502, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993); Texas

Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.

Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).

Plaintiff failed to show that she was meeting Defendant’s

legitimate expectations. Defendant contends that Plaintiff

was terminated because she had excessive tardies and absences,

was insubordinate, did not get along with fellow workers,

talked on her cell phone, played computer games, and listened

to loud music and danced when she should have been working,

did not follow company policies and demonstrated poor work

performance. Plaintiff contends the circumstances surrounding

her termination give rise to an inference of discrimination as

Case 2:06-cv-02198-RTD-JRM Document 39 Filed 03/07/08 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

similarly situated employees, who are not African-American,

were treated differently. Plaintiff’s argument fails because

the Defendant offered evidence of at least eight similarly

situated Caucasian employees outside the protected class that

were terminated between October, 2005 and March, 2006, for

similar reasons. 

Even employment decisions that are unfair or can be

considered the result of poor business judgment are not

actionable under Title VII. See Hill v. St. Louis Univ., 123

F.3d 1114 (8 Cir. 1997). While better cooperation and th

communication between supervisors and those being supervised

would be in it of itself desirable, such failure does not

establish a cause of action under Title VII. Federal courts

do not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an

entity’s business decisions. See Harvey v. Anheuser Busch,

Inc., 38 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 1994). While the Plaintiff

sincerely believes she was the subject of unfair treatment,

the Court has examined and re-examined the evidence and can

only conclude that Defendant’s decision to terminate the

Plaintiff was not motivated in any sense by Plaintiff’s race.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Plaintiff, a member of a protected class, failed to

establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination

against the Defendant, because she failed to show that

Case 2:06-cv-02198-RTD-JRM Document 39 Filed 03/07/08 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

she was meeting Defendant’s legitimate expectations, and

even if she met these expectations, Defendant’s proffered

reasons for terminating her were legitimate and nondiscriminatory. 

2. Plaintiff was terminated because she had excessive

tardies and absences, was insubordinate, did not get

along with fellow workers, talked on her cell phone,

played computer games, and listened to loud music and

danced when she should have been working, did not follow

company policies and demonstrated poor work performance.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the

evidence her claim for race discrimination. Accordingly,

judgment is for the Defendant, and Plaintiff’s claim should be

and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to

bear their own fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of March 2008. 

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02198-RTD-JRM Document 39 Filed 03/07/08 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>