Opinion ID: 712765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discriminatory Evaluations

Text: 6 Ritzert-Smith attempts to raise a fact issue regarding Siemens' explanation of the pay disparity: she argues that her supervisors were biased against her. If this were so, a genuine issue of fact could exist as to whether Ritzert-Smith's sex affected her compensation. See Fadhl v. City and County of San Francisco, 741 F.2d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.1984) (liability imposed where plaintiff's termination was ostensibly grounded on poor performance but evaluators exhibited bias). Ritzert-Smith offers several examples to show that her evaluators were biased. 1
7 She claims that male employees were not criticized for their hostile behavior, but she was. As she gives no valid, comparable examples to demonstrate this conclusory statement, it does not create a genuine issue of material fact. 2 See Forsberg, 840 F.2d at 1419 (conclusory allegations will not bar summary judgment).
8 It is possible to infer that Ritzert-Smith's supervisor Phillips harbored some gender bias based on the 1982 3 incident during which he told her to tape [two skullcaps] together and use them for a bra. The record does not, however, reflect any connection between Phillips and Ritzert-Smith's limited pay raises and loss of promotion to Senior Tech. 9 Phillips prepared her 1982 evaluation. That year, she was a Tech II. The next year, on schedule, she advanced to Tech III and received a corresponding pay increase. There is no evidence that Phillips contributed to her evaluations from 1983 to 1992. 4 It was those evaluations that prevented her promotion to Senior Tech and determined her salary during the period at issue.
10 According to Ritzert-Smith's affidavit, Mr. Stephens, who prepared most of her performance evaluations, told her in 1986, You remind me of my wife. I cannot do anything about her, but I can definitely do something about you. 11 She argues that this remark is evidence of Stephens' discriminatory mindset. Without context, it is impossible to determine whether this comment derived from gender bias at all.  'Stray' remarks are insufficient to establish discrimination. Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1990) (quotation omitted); see also Nesbit v. Pepsico, Inc., 994 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir.1993) (discriminatory remark uttered in an ambivalent manner and not tied directly to employment decision was at best weak circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus and insufficient to defeat summary judgment).
12 Ritzert-Smith's claims regarding Mr. Hill, General Supervisor of the Chemical Operations Group and her indirect supervisor, are more troubling. Her account of his behavior, which we assume is true for purposes of summary judgment, would show that he made offensive remarks and jokes relating to her sex. 13 Siemens argues that Hill's attitude is irrelevant because he did not evaluate Ritzert-Smith. Although it is true that he did not sign the evaluations until after her direct supervisors had completed them and reviewed them with her, his affidavit indicates that he had some responsibility for her reviews. 14 Even so, we find scant evidence to support Ritzert-Smith's contention, tenuous to begin with, that she received low marks for cooperation and teamwork and in turn did not progress at the company, because of Hill's alleged bias. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). (If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.) (citations omitted). Siemens has presented consistent performance evaluations for 13 years, nearly all of which voice the same complaint: Ritzert-Smith was rude and contemptuous of coworkers. Her poor ratings came from several supervisors over the years. The same criticisms appeared in years in which Hill did not sign the evaluations as in years that he did, and continued after he retired. 15 We are mindful that it is Siemens' burden to prove that its compensation decisions were based on factors other than sex, Corning, 417 U.S. at 196-97; nevertheless, we do not find that Ritzert-Smith has shown a causal link between discriminatory conduct and her salary that would cast doubt on Siemens' gender-neutral explanation of the pay disparity. Summary judgment was appropriate: a reasonable jury could not fail to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Siemens' wage decisions were based on factors other than sex. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.