Opinion ID: 496702
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discrimination in Training

Text: 34 Rowlett introduced evidence that showed that his supervisor knew he needed training, that he repeatedly requested training, that white foremen who needed training were trained, and that he was not trained, until he went over the local management's head to Anheuser-Busch headquarters. Anheuser-Busch argues on appeal that this evidence did not establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, because none of the employees promoted to foreman from the rank of the hourlies received formal training; only those hired off the street with no prior experience in beer quality control received formal training. We agree with the district court, however, that the relevant group for comparison is white foremen who needed training, and not white foremen promoted from hourlies. As an hourly Rowlett had not received as much on the job training as white workers; thus, like foremen hired from outside, Rowlett needed training to fulfill his duties as described in his job description. 35 At trial Anheuser-Busch explained the disparate treatment as resulting from Rowlett's absenteeism; Campos said he could not train Rowlett because Rowlett was absent from work so often. To show this reason was pretextual, Rowlett presented evidence that the training he finally received in 1981 took only six hours. Although that training was superficial, its short duration does indicate that Rowlett's absences did not really prevent him from being trained. His evaluations consistently mentioned the need for training; defendant's own personnel policy required him to be trained as soon as practicable; white employees who needed the training received it; and the only justification Anheuser-Busch provided could reasonably be seen as pretextual. This evidence is sufficient to support the finding of intentional racial discrimination.