Opinion ID: 56302
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disparate treatment—Work Assignment Claims6

Text: Appellants argue that the magistrate erred by refusing to analyze this case under the “pattern and practice” standard often used in actions brought by the government or in class actions.7 Appellants misapprehend the Report and Recommendation’s analysis. The magistrate did not rule that “pattern and practice” evidence was not admissible; rather, the magistrate determined that 6 The magistrate described appellants’ claims as “disparate pay claims.” Appellants argue that it is more accurate to describe the claims as disparate work assignments between different sections of the restaurant that were perceived as more or less lucrative. This distinction is merely semantic insofar as the magistrate’s analysis of the relevance of the pattern and practice evidence is otherwise correct. 7 Appellant Nanji, as a busser, does not claim disparate treatment in work assignment or pay. 18 “while pattern and practice may be relevant to a claim of pretext in a private individual’s case of discrimination, it cannot support a prima facie case.” The magistrate relied on Scarlett v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 676 F.2d 1043, 1053 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982),8 which held that individuals asserting employment discrimination claims must prove the elements articulated in McDonnell Douglas. To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, the appellants must show that (1) they were qualified members of a protected class, and (2) were subjected to an adverse employment action in contrast with similarly situated employees outside the protected class. Wilson v. B/E Aero., Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1087 (11th Cir. 2004). The magistrate accurately described the probative value of appellants’ “pattern and practice” evidence when he determined that it was unnecessary to evaluate the statistical evidence because “[p]laintiffs’ disparate pay claims fail because none of them have offered any evidence that any similarly-situated white servers were assigned to better tables, sections, and rooms.” Even assuming, contrary to the magistrate’s analysis, that appellants’ statistical evidence could be used to satisfy any of the appellants’ prima facie 8 The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent all of the post-September 30, 1981 decisions of Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit. Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982). 19 obligation to show that white servers were given better work assignments than appellants, the statistical evidence is insufficient to meet this burden. Both parties’ experts found a statistically-significant difference in section assignments between African-American and white servers. However, appellants’ expert did not present any evidence that this difference led to a difference in earnings between similarlysituated employees. In fact, ESPN Zone’s expert testified that average sales per table was higher in the sections that African-American servers were more likely to be assigned. Appellants’ expert correctly notes that this per table average does not demonstrate that a server’s income would be higher per shift because per shift income would be dependent on number of tables served and differences between voluntary and obligatory gratuities. Nevertheless, it is appellants’ burden to show that similarly-situated white servers were treated more favorably. Neither the statistical evidence nor appellants’ conclusory allegations meets this burden, and accordingly, summary judgment on the disparate work assignment claim was proper.