Opinion ID: 350723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Employment Practices of the District

Text: 21 Chavez' second contention is that the employment practices of the school district were discriminatory and violated her civil rights. She asserts, in effect, that even if the position of language department head were not available at the time she applied for it, the employment practices which led to this result were themselves discriminatory. Once again, we must evaluate this claim in terms of both Title VII and section 1983.
22 On numerous occasions the Supreme Court has pointed out that in enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress intended to prohibit all practices in whatever form which create inequality in employment opportunity due to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin. Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747, 763, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 1263, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976). Accord, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, 411 U.S. at 800, 93 S.Ct. 1817; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-30, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). Even employment practices carried out with no discriminatory intent may be illegal if they result in discrimination on the basis of race. Id. at 432, 91 S.Ct. 849. Thus, there is a legal basis for Chavez' attack upon the district's employment practices. The question before us is whether she has met her burden of proving that the practices complained of constituted discrimination in violation of Title VII. General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 137 n. 14, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817.
23 We first consider the procedure whereby Cox advanced Tone from acting chairperson of the language department to permanent chairperson without advertising that the permanent position was available and without recruiting minorities. Although this procedure is non-discriminatory on its face, Title VII proscribes even facially neutral practices and procedures not justified by business necessity which perpetuate the effects of past discrimination. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra, 401 U.S. at 430-31, 91 S.Ct. 849. Chavez' complaints raise the question of whether the procedure employed was objectionable on these grounds. If an acting chairperson were previously selected in a discriminatory manner, automatically appointing her permanent chairperson without giving minorities an opportunity to apply for the position might well perpetuate the effects of past discrimination in violation of Title VII. 8 24 Moreover, even if the district did not strictly enforce its policy of automatic advancement, the inability of minorities to learn about the availability of permanent positions as department head could permit a de facto policy of internal advancement, leading to the perpetuation of past discrimination in the selection of acting department heads. Swint v. Pullman Standard, 539 F.2d 77, 101-02 (5th Cir. 1976); Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 348, 358-59 (5th Cir. 1972); Brown v. Gaston County Dyeing Machine Co., 457 F.2d 1377, 1383 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 982, 93 S.Ct. 319, 34 L.Ed.2d 246 (1972). 25 Here, however, the evidence points to the conclusion that there was no discrimination against Chavez in the selection of acting department heads. Thus, there was no past discrimination with regard to her which might be perpetuated by the advancement procedure at issue here. 26 Chavez was given a fair opportunity to apply to Marcos de Niza in time to be considered for the position of acting department chairperson. Through the series of announcements made by Cox prior to the opening of the school, the school board made efforts to inform all teachers within the district that positions would be available at Marcos de Niza and that they were encouraged to apply. Chavez, who was teaching within the district at the time of these announcements, simply failed to take advantage of the opportunity which was given to her. 9 27 Furthermore, if she had applied, there is no indication that Chavez would have been subject to discrimination in the actual selection of acting department heads. There were three Mexican-Americans who applied to Marcos de Niza prior to the opening of school. Of these, two requested to be department chairpersons and were appointed by Cox to be heads of their respective departments. One subsequently became assistant principal of the school. Based on these facts, there is no reason to believe that Cox would have impermissibly discriminated against Chavez in selecting an acting chairperson of the language department if she had also applied prior to the opening of school. Because Chavez had a fair opportunity to obtain a position as acting department head, the complained-of advancement procedure was not discriminatory as to her. 10 28
29 Chavez also charges that the failure of the district to follow its own standards concerning qualifications for department chairpersons was impermissibly discriminatory under Title VII. We disagree. 30 Chavez has not shown that the failure of the district to follow its own standards had a disproportionately unfavorable impact on minorities. Indeed, as we have already seen, both Mexican-Americans who sought department head positions at Marcos de Niza were appointed to be the heads of their respective departments. This is striking evidence that the school's departure from policy manual standards did not result in the exclusion of minorities. 31 Nevertheless, Chavez asserts that the district was under an affirmative duty to impose pertinent, objective criteria for the hiring of personnel and to follow those criteria. In support of this proposition, she cites Carey v. Greyhound Bus Co., 500 F.2d 1372 (5th Cir. 1974) and Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Refining Corp., 495 F.2d 437 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,419 U.S. 1033, 95 S.Ct. 515, 42 L.Ed.2d 308 (1974). But the question before us is not whether the district is under an affirmative duty to impose objective standards; it is whether the failure to impose and follow such standards is impermissibly discriminatory. Both Carey and Baxter were cases where the evidence raised an inference that there had been discrimination against minorities and that the lack of objective standards in hiring was an instrumental factor in this result. Here, however, we have already determined that the failure of the district to follow the policy manual standards was not discriminatory. 32 We conclude that Chavez has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII with regard to the district's departure from the policy manual standards.
33 Neither the district's advancement policy nor its failure to adhere to its own policy manual standards gives Chavez a cause of action under section 1983. Because section 1983 incorporates by reference the terms of the Constitution itself, 11 it appears that an action under this statute at least to the extent it relies upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires proof not only of discriminatory impact, but also of discriminatory intent as established by the Supreme Court in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). 34 Chavez has not met either of these requirements. Not only has she failed to show that the district's employment practices had a racially discriminatory impact, as explained above, but it is plain from the record that she has not demonstrated that there was a racially improper motive underlying those practices. 12 Thus, Chavez' section 1983 attack is doubly defective.