Opinion ID: 455846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Consider the Internal Alignment Criteria

Text: 9 The evidence showed that the plaintiff's supervisor was David Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell accepted the position of Regional Director of the Atlanta office in 1974. Some of the other executives in the Atlanta Regional Office were the Chiefs of Training, Staffing, Labor Management Relations and Regional Equal Employment Opportunities, the latter position being held by plaintiff. With the exception of the plaintiff, all of the executives were white and were one level higher in terms of their grade than similarly situated executives in the smaller CSC regional offices. 10 The evidence demonstrated that most of the executives in the large regional offices were two grades higher than the Regional EEO Representatives in the large offices. However, the Labor Management Relations Officers were generally one grade higher than the Regional EEO Representatives. In the small regional offices, most of the executives were one grade higher than the Regional EEO Representatives. However, the Labor Management Relations Officers in the small offices generally held the same grade as the Regional EEO Representatives. Most of the Regional EEO Representatives were minorities. Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 illustrated this difference. 11 REGIONAL EXECUTIVE STAFF GRADES A (W/OUTSIDE MONITORING ADV. RESP) CHIEF (IPPD) CHIEF CHIEF CHIEF INT' GOVT CHIEF CHIEF DOCUMENT REGION SIZE STAFFING PMED TRAINING PROG LMR REEO DATES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atlanta L GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-14 GS-13 1979 #1 (Southeast) Chicago L GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-13 GS-13 1979 #3 (Great Lakes) Dallas L GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-14 GS-13 1978 #5 (Southeast) Phil. L GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-14 GS-13 1979 #7 (Mid-Atl.) San Fran. L GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-15 GS-14 GS-13 1978-79 #8 (Western) Boston S GS-14 GS-14 GS-14 GS-14 GS-13 GS-13 1979 #2 (New Eng.) Denver S GS-14 GS-14 GS-14 GS-14 GS-13 GS-13 1979 #4 (Rocky Mtn.) New York S No Ref. (Eastern) St. Louis S GS-14 GS-14 GS-14 GS-14 GS-13 GS-13 Undated #6 (Mid-Continent) Seattle S GS-14 GS-14 GS-14 GS-14 GS-13 GS-12 1979 #9 (Northwest) A L = Large Office 12 S = Small OfficeDuring his tenure as Regional Director, Mr. Caldwell annually certified the accuracy of the position descriptions of his staff. Mr. Caldwell did not recommend that the plaintiff's position be reclassified so that the position would be aligned with other positions in the Atlanta office. 13 The plaintiff argues that his position should have been reclassified under the classification principle known as internal alignment. 3 The plaintiff claims that the position of Regional EEO Representative was not appropriately aligned with the positions of white executives in the Atlanta office that had comparable responsibilities. It is urged that the plaintiff and the white executives held the same position descriptions as their counterparts in the smaller offices. Although the white executives were uniformly rated at least one grade higher than their counterparts in the smaller offices, the plaintiff held the same grade as the EEO Representatives in the smaller offices. According to the plaintiff, this grade disparity illustrates that due to his race the principle of internal alignment was not applied so that he could receive a higher grade or a grade premium. The plaintiff further asserts that the district court was confused about the law because it reasoned that the focus of any discrimination would have to be on Mr. Caldwell. 14 The defendants contend that the plaintiff's position was properly classified and that they presented legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the grade disparity. The defendants direct the court to one of the plaintiff's arguments, i.e., that the Labor Relations Officer and Regional EEO Representative positions were so similar that a comparison of the two should have highlighted any discrimination. The defendants argue the evidence established that the Labor Relations Officer position in the Atlanta office was more complex than the Regional EEO Representative position and as a result the former was properly graded at a GS-14. Finally, they urge that because of the extensive evidence of Mr. Caldwell's efforts to promote affirmative action, the plaintiff did not prove discriminatory intent and thus cannot prevail on this claim. 15 In order to prove discriminatory treatment a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). The district court in this case found that a prima facie case had not been established. We agree. 16 The statistics presented failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. The plaintiff did not prove that: (1) white executives in comparable positions received a grade premium; or (2) the differences in the grades was a result of racial considerations. 17 Moreover, the evidence presented at trial only permitted a comparison of the plaintiff's position and the position of the Labor Relations Officer. The district court specifically found that the Labor Relations Officer's position was more complex and required a greater exercise of discretion. After reviewing the record, we conclude that this finding is supported by substantial evidence and thus is not clearly erroneous. 4 18 The plaintiff and the Labor Relations Officer had different duties and responsibilities. Thus, Mr. Caldwell was under no duty to recommend a reclassification of the plaintiff's position. During his tenure, Mr. Caldwell did not recommend a reclassification of any position. However, even if Mr. Caldwell had recommended a reclassification of the Labor Relations Officer's position, his failure to recommend a reclassification of the plaintiff's position would not have been discriminatory because the two positions were different. As we stated in Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Communications, 738 F.2d 1181 (11th Cir.1984): 19 [I]f an employer applies a rule differently to people it believes are differently situated, no discriminatory intent has been shown. ... Nix did not meet his burden of showing that a white employee in similar circumstances was retained while he was fired. He failed, therefore, to make out a prima facie case or to create an inference of discrimination. 20 Id. at 1186-87. 21 Because [the plaintiff] did not make out a prima facie case, he cannot prevail merely by showing that the articulated reason [for the grade disparity] was probably not the true reason. Id. at 1187. The plaintiff had the burden of proving intentional discrimination. See United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). 22 The plaintiff has not presented direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a finding of intentional discrimination. There is nothing in the record that would support a conclusion that Mr. Caldwell or the previous director of the Atlanta Regional office failed to recommend that the plaintiff's position be reclassified because of the plaintiff's race. There is also insufficient evidence that officials at the CSC deviated from established procedures or incorrectly evaluated factors when the position of Regional EEO Representative was assigned the grade of GS-13. 5 In the absence of evidence supporting a finding that race was a factor in the defendants' employment decisions, we must hold that the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof. 23