NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0777n.06 F iled: October 18, 2006 No. 05-4520 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
M YL AN N L . OV ER

AL L , Plaintif f-Appellant , v. RA DI OSHA CK

CO RP OR

AT ION , Defendant-

Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PE A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO URT FORTHE NORTH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: NO RRIS, CO LE, and C OOK , C ir c uitJudg e s. R. G UY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. P laintiff-Appe llant My lann L . Over all sued D e f e n d an t- Ap p e ll e e Ra d io Sh a c k Co r p o r a ti o n
— u n d e r 4 2 U
. S. C. § 2 0 0 0(e) et. s eq ., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 ( “Title VI I ”), 42 U .S.C. § 1981, and Ohio R ev i sed Code § 4112.02(A )—alleg ing RadioSha c k

u n la w f u ll y f a il e d , o r r e f u s e d , to h ir e h im

b e c a u s e h e is A f

r ic anA me r ic an . F o r

the following rea sons, we AF F IRM the district court’s e ntry of summary

judgme nt for RadioShack. I. BACK GR OUND Ra dio Sha c k is a c on sume r- e le c tr on ic s de a le r that e mpl oy s a pp ro xima te ly 35 ,0 00 pe rs on s in approximately

5,200 stores nationwide. This dispute cente rs ar ound Over all' s attempt to apply for a sale s-associate position with a RadioShack store in El y ria, Ohio for RadioShack' s 2002 "G olden Quar ter," the period surrounding the holiday -sales season of October , November , and De ce m b er.No. 05-4520

Ove rall v. RadioShack Corp.

Ov e ra ll l a te r e arn e d a

g e ne ra l e qu iva le nc y

de g ree i n J un e 2003 , w e ll a ft e r t he e ve nts 1 surroundingthis case oc curr ed. - 2 - Ra d io Sh a c k h a s tw o lo c a ti o n s in E ly r ia : th e M id

w ay M a ll s to r e ( “ M a ll s to r e ” ) an d the 249-A Midway Boule vard store (“B oulevar d store”) , both of which are located in the Midwa y Mall about
a qu art e r m ile a

pa rt
. I n ear ly October 2002, Ove rall, a twenty -four -y ear -old hig h school dropout, picked up a n 1 employ ment application fr om the Boule vard store and took it home to fill out. After completing the application, Ove rall re turned, with application in hand, to the Boul ev ar d store and spoke with the
s t o re m an ag e r , D e b r a “ C ri ck et ” T ay l o r. Al t h o u ght h e s t o re ’s wi n d o w d i s p l ay eda “ No w H i ri n g” sign, Ta ylor ref used to take the application. She told Ove rall that the Boule vard store was not hiring
and dir e c te d O ve ra ll t o ta

ke his a pp lic a tio n to the Ma ll s tor e , w he re the re wa s a hir ing mana g e r w ith hiring authority . Over all declined to take the application to the nearby Mall store. I t is RadioS hack policy

that whene ver RadioShac k is hiring store assoc iates compa ny -wide, it p la c e s “ No w H ir ing ” sig ns in t he wi nd ow s o f al l its stor e s. Ev e n thou g h the sig ns are pla c e d in the window of ever

y store, not all RadioShack store ma nag ers have hiringauthority ; Taylor was one such mana g er who did not. Ta ylor’s ref usal to a cce pt O vera ll’s e mploy ment application, howe ver, violated RadioShack policy requiringall m anag ers to ac cept a pplications from prospe ctive employ ees who do not w ish to g o to a nother location. This policy require s store mana g ers without hiring authority

to acc ept the application and forwa rd it to the appropr iate hiringmanag er. Even thoug h Over all chose not to take his application to the nea rby Mall store, a w eek later, he a g a in at t e mp t e d

t o g i v e t h e a

p p l i c a t i o nt o T ayl o r . C o n t r ar y t o R a d i o S h a c k

p o l i c y , T ayl o r

s t i llNo. 05-4520

Ove rall v. RadioShack Corp.

- 3 - re fu se d to a c c e pt i t, o nc e mor e ins tr uc tin g Ov e ra ll t o ta

ke his a pp lic a tio n to the Ma ll s tor e . A ft e r t his failed se cond attempt, Ove rall g ave up on be coming a RadioShack sa les associate. For its 2002 Golde n Quar

ter, RadioShack ultimately hired three temporar y employ ees f

or the Boule vard store : a white male, a white fe male, and a

n Afric an-A merica

n male. Ov e ra ll b ro ug ht s uit

a g a ins t Rad ioS ha c k cla imi ng Ra dio Sha c k f a ile d, or re fu se d, to h ir e him beca use he is Af

rica n Americ an in vi olation of bot h fede ral and state law. RadioShac k moved for
summa ry jud g me nt s ole ly

on the ba sis that Ov e ra ll did no t make out a pr ima fa c ie c a se fo r d isp arate treatment in f

ailing to hir e him. The district c ourt deter mined there was a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to whether

Overal l was qualified f or the position but, neverthe less, g rante d summary judgme nt for RadioShack be cause it f ound Over all failed to e stablish that he actua lly applied for

the position. This timely

appea l followed. II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Standard of

Review This Court revie ws a g rant of summar y judgme nt de novo. E.g. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Zen Design Gro u

p , Ltd. , 329 F.3d 546, 551–52 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Summ ary judgme nt is proper “ if the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd admi s s i o n s on file, tog ether with the
a ff ida vit s, if any , s ho w that th e re is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l fa c t and that th e mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to a

jud g me nt a s a

matte r o f l aw. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ). Th e “ me re e xiste nc e of so me alleg ed fa ctual dispute betwe en the pa rties will not de feat an otherw ise proper ly supported motion for summary

judgme nt; the require ment is that there be no genuine issue of ma te ria l fac t.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc

. , 47 7 U .S. 24 2, 24 7- 48 (1 98 6) ; s ee also W eave r v. Shadoan , 340 F.3d 398, 405No. 05-4520

Ove rall v. RadioShack Corp.

- 4 - (6th Cir. 2003). “The mere exis tence of a sc intill a of e vidence in support of t he plaintiff' s position will be insufficient; there must be evidenc e on which the jury could re asonably

find for the plaintiff.” Id . at 252. Be cause the eleme nts and leg al standards f or establishing unlawful e mploy ment dis c ri min a tio n a

re the same un de r b oth Oh io law an d Titl e VI I , we ne e d not an a ly ze O ve ra ll’ s st a te and federa l discrimination claims separ ately
. Se e Lad e ra c h v . U

-H au l of Nor thw este rn Oh io , 207 F.3d 825, 828 (6th Cir. 2000) (c iting Litt le Forest Me d. Ctr. of Akron v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n , 57 5 N .E .2 d 11 64 , 11 67 (O hio 19 91 ))
. I f s umm ary jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr iate fo r o ne c la im, the n it is appropr iate for

both. B. O ve r all ’s F ail ur e -t o- Hir e Cl aim I n a dis pa rate -t re a tme nt c a se su c h a s thi s, wh e re a pla int if f c la ims he wa s no t hir e d b e c a us e of ra cial discrimination, the plaintiff must establish a prima f acie case under a

slightly modified version of the burden- shifting approa ch adopted by the Supreme Court in McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Gre en , 411 U.S. 792 (1973). S e e Fu hr v . Sc h. Di st. of Ha ze l P ar k , 364 F.3d 753, 758 (6th Cir. 2004). To make out a prima fa cie c ase, O vera ll must show that (1) he is a member of a prote cted class, (2) he applied f

or and did not rec eive the job at issue, (3) he was qua lified for the job, and (4) simil arly situate d p er s o n s n o t in his class rec eived the job f or which he applied. An tho ny v . B TR A u t o . S ea l i n g Sys., Inc

. , 339 F.3d 506, 514 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Additionally , in a failure -to-hire case , a plaintiff must show that “the de fenda nt continued to acc ept applicants for the position from equally

qualified pe rsons.” Christ opher v. Stoude r Mem'l Hosp. , 936 F.2d 870, 879 (6th Cir. 1991) (c iting McD onnell Douglas Corp. , 4 11 U. S. at 80 2) . I f a pla intiff satis fi e s th e seNo. 05-4520

Ove rall v. RadioShack Corp.

- 5 - prong s, the burden shifts to the defenda nt to show that it had a leg itimate non-discriminatory rea son for failing to hire the plaintiff. McD onnell Douglas Corp. , 4 1 1 U
. S. a t 8 0 4
. I f the e mploy er
art ic ulate s su c h a re a so n, the burd e n shif ts ba c k to the pla int if

f to s ho w that th is r e a so n is pr e te xtua l. Id
. A fa ilure to establish any one ele ment of the prima fac ie case i s sufficie nt to gr ant summary judgme nt in favor of

RadioShack. Here, because we conclude that Overa ll’s claim fails on the third element, we need not a ddress the rest of the McD onnel Douglas test. To show that he wa s qualified for the sa les associate position, Overall must prese nt “cr edible evide nce that his . . . qualifications
are at least e quivalent to t h e m i n i m u m objective c riteria r equire d for e mploy ment in the rele vant field.” W

exle r v. W

hite’s Fine Furn i t u r e, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 576 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (en ba nc). Although the district court found that ther e was a triable issue as to whether Over all was qua lified for the position, we c onclude other wise. T h e j o b d es cr i p t i o nfo r R ad i o S h ac k s al es as s o ci at es provides, under the hea d i n g “Kn o wl ed ge
and Ski ll Re qu ir e me nts ,” tha

t a “ [h]ig h s c ho ol d ipl oma

or e qu iva le nt” is r e qu ir e d. (Joi nt A pp e nd ix 133.) F urther, Ra dioShack pre sented de position t es t imony and af fidavits from thre e RadioShack
mana g e rs de sc ri bin g a Ra dio Sha c k poli c y re qu ir inga ll s a le s a sso c iate s o ve r t he a g e of e ig hte e n to h av e a h i g h s c h o o l d i p l o m a o r g e n e r a l e qu i v a l e n c y d e g r e e ( “ G E D ” )
. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s p o l i c y,
e very on e hir e d at th e B ou le va rd sto re duri ngthe 20 02 Go lde n Q ua rt e r h a d a high s c ho ol d ipl oma or GED. A t the time Over all soug ht employ ment with RadioShack as a sales associate, he was ove r the ag e of e ighte en but pos sessed ne ither a hig h school diploma nor a GE D. Thus, underNo. 05-4520

Ove rall v. RadioShack Corp.

- 6 - RadioShack policy , Over all lacke d a necessar y qualification required f

or employ

ment as a sa les associate
. Th e dis tr ic t court , how e ve r, c on c lud e d that Ove ra ll pr e se nte d suf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to c re a te a triable issue reg ardingRadioShack’s actual hi ring prac tices. The dist rict court found persua sive t h e f o l l o wi n g fa ct s : (1 ) R ad i o S h ac k ’s we b s i t e d i d n o tre fe re n ce a ge n er al re qu i re m en to f ah i gh school diploma or GED for the sales a ssociate position but did ex pressly state such a

require ment for the “Mana g er in T raining ” position; and (2) RadioShack re g ularly hired pe ople under

the ag e of
e ig hte e n w ho did

no t po sse ss a

high s c ho ol d ipl oma

or e qu iva le nt. Thes e f a c ts d o n o t a d e qu a te ly

r e b u t R a d io Sh a c k ’ s e v id e n c e th a t O v e r a ll w a s n o t q u a li f ie d for the sales associate pos ition. First, Overa ll has only shown that RadioShack’s we bsite spells out
a mor e e xpans ive lis t of

re qu ir e me nts fo r t

he “ Ma na g e r i n T ra ini ng ” po sit ion tha n th e sa le s a sso c iate position. Overall has not pre sented a ny evidenc e to re fute RadioShack’ s proffe red te stimony that persons ove r the a g e of e ighte en must possess a hig h school diploma or GED to be hired, nor has he shown a sing le instance wher e RadioShack did not follow its hiring r ule. Second, Ove rall i nterpre ts RadioShack’s pra ctice of hiring people unde r the a g e of e ighte en, who lack a high school diploma or GED, a s meaningthat RadioShack does not ac tually have a hiring policy requiringsales assoc iates over the ag e of eig hteen to posse ss one . Over all’s infer ence g oes too f ar. Th e mor e re a so na

ble e xplanatio n is that Ra dio Sha c k’ s st ri c t e du c a tio n r e qu ir e me nt i s relax ed for

employ ees who are under the ag e of e ighte en. This natura lly follows when one considers that the vast majority

of people under the ag e of e ighte en ar e still in hi g h school, which would, unsurprising ly , make it impossible for them to have a high sc hool diploma or GED.No. 05-4520

Ove rall v. RadioShack Corp.

- 7 - I n October

2002, it is undi sputed that Over all was ove r the a g e of eig hteen and had neither a hig h school diploma nor a GE D. The e vidence in the rec ord shows t h at RadioShack did not consider O vera ll qualified for a sales associate position, and, theref ore, e ven if Ta

ylor had a cce pted Over all’s completed e mploy ment application, Ove rall would not have been hired. Over all has not prese nted any

evidenc e to re fute RadioShack’ s evidence est ablishing a hiring policy

that require d all sales assoc iates over

the ag e of eig hteen to possess a high s chool di ploma or GED. T here fore , the dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y g ra nte d summa

ry jud g me nt fo r Ra dio Sha c k ba se d o n O ve ra ll’ s f a ilure to establish a g enuine issue of materia l fac t with respec t to whether he was qua lifie d fo r t h e sale s
a sso c iate po sit ion . B e c a

us e re so lut ion of thi s qu e sti on is su ff ic ie nt to gra

nt s umm ary

jud g me nt i n favor of RadioShack, we do not rea ch t h e question of whether O vera ll actually applied for

the position at iss ue. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.