Opinion ID: 1041140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disparate Treatment—Termination

Text: Wright next contends the district court clearly erred in finding Wright “failed to prove that race was the motivating factor behind” Wright’s termination. See Nassar, 570 U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 2526 (describing the “lessened causation standard” of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), which enables a complaining party to prove “unlawful employment” discrimination by “demonstrat[ing] that race . . . was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice”). “The ultimate question in every employment discrimination case involving a claim of disparate treatment is whether the plaintiff was the victim of intentional discrimination.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 153 (2000). Wright can meet her burden of proving the hospital “‘intentionally discriminated against’” her based on her race in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 “‘either directly by persuading the [district] court that a discriminatory reason . . . motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.’ In short, the district court must decide which party’s explanation of the employer’s motivation it believes.” U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. -10- of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-16, 103 (1983) (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981)) (explaining we must focus on discrimination vel non when an appeal in a discrimination case follows a bench trial on the merits); see also Ross v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1050 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that, following the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102–166, Tit. I, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991), we apply substantially the same standards to similar racial discrimination claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981); Kim, 123 F.3d at 1063 (“The elements of claims alleging disparate treatment on the basis of race under Title VII and intentional employment discrimination on the basis of race under § 1981 are identical.”).6 Here, the district court believed Sacker’s explanation that she terminated Wright for being insubordinate during the July 9, 2009, call—not because Wright is African-American. After considering Wright’s testimony suggesting the call “ended in sweetness and light,” the district court credited testimony from Sacker and Cockrell regarding Wright’s “passionate, angry conduct” during the call. The district court explained its “best judgment . . . [was] that [Wright] lost [her] temper and had had enough of all of this, and that [Wright was] angry in that call and [Wright’s anger during the call] prompted the termination rather than a racial motivation or discrimination.” 6 The parties do not dispute that the motivating-factor standard applied to Wright’s discrimination claims under both Title VII and § 1981, and the district court applied that standard, finding no racially discriminatory motive. However, the comments to the Eighth Circuit model jury instructions suggest there is some confusion as to the appropriate causation standard to apply in § 1981 racial discrimination claims. See 8th Cir. Civil Jury Instr. §§ 5.00, 11.00, 11.40 n.5 (stating “[t]he appropriate standard in a section 1981 case is not clearly resolved”), 11.41; cf. EEOC v. Con-Way Freight, Inc., 622 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2010) (declining to decide whether the mixed-motive amendments to Title VII “apply in § 1981 actions”). Our holding in Kim necessarily determined the same causation standard applies in parallel Title VII and § 1981 racial discrimination claims. -11- Wright’s challenge to the district court’s reasoned judgment is primarily based on the “demographics of the operating room.” Quoting Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 456 (4th Cir. 1994), for the proposition that “[s]tatistics can provide important proof of employment discrimination,” Wright avers Sacker terminated three AfricanAmerican employees, including Wright, and no Caucasian employees in the nine months Sacker was with the hospital. Wright further notes eight of twelve employees the hospital terminated from the surgical department from 2008 to 2010 were AfricanAmerican, including Wright. Wright’s inchoate statistical analysis falls short of showing clear error. See Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 14 F.3d 1305, 1310 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding “bare statistics, without more [i.e., a cogent comparison to similarly situated7 non-minority employees who were treated differently], were insufficient . . . to prove” unlawful racial discrimination). In admitting Wright’s statistical evidence over the hospital’s relevance objection, the district court stated there was “some marginal evidentiary value in having the big picture, having the context,” but cautioned Wright the district court was “very wary of moving from those numbers en masse to an inference of discrimination.” See Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 580 (1978) (deciding trial courts are “entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation”). When the district court advised Wright of the importance of apt comparators and warned the statistical evidence alone was “not much of a case if that’s all there is,” Wright assured the district court that 7 “The test for whether employees are similarly situated ‘is rigorous and requires that the other employees be similarly situated in all relevant aspects before the plaintiff can introduce evidence comparing herself to the other employees.’” Davis v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass’n, 685 F.3d 675, 681 (8th Cir. 2012) (alteration omitted) (quoting Fields v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 520 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir. 2008)). “‘The individuals used for comparison must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards, and [have] engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating or distinguishing circumstances.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Morgan v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 486 F.3d 1034, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007)). -12- the statistical evidence was offered “to kind of give the Court some kind of picture of what the racial makeup is of the department.” On appeal, Wright does not even discuss the racial makeup of the entire surgical department during the relevant period or otherwise provide context for her claims, cf. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 310 (1977) (“What the [employment] figures prove obviously depends upon the figures to which they are compared.”), much less address the differences in supervisors and discharge circumstances that might affect her rudimentary statistical analysis. See Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 1995) (declaring “statistical evidence is not probative of pretext [if] it fails to analyze the treatment of comparable employees”). “For the statistical comparison to be probative in persuading the trier of fact on the ultimate issue of discrimination, [Wright] must establish that the Caucasian employees who were [purportedly treated differently] were ‘similarly situated in all relevant respects’ to the African-American employees.” Williams, 14 F.3d at 1309 (quoting Smith v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 770 F.2d 719, 723 (8th Cir. 1985)). Wright has not done that. Wright vaguely relies on the testimony of Zenobia Smith, the only AfricanAmerican PCC in the OR, presumably to imply discrimination in the department based on Smith’s experiences in her impressive thirty-four years at the hospital. But Smith testified (1) none of the terminations of African-American employees in the surgical department during the relevant time “raise[d] a question in [her] mind as to the fairness of the termination,” and (2) Sacker treated Smith fairly and supported Smith’s authority when challenged by Caucasian nurses. Smith further explained one of the two other African-American employees Sacker terminated was a “no call, no show,” suggesting a non-discriminatory reason for the termination. And Wright did not ask Smith for details regarding the third employee Sacker terminated reportedly for failing to meet expectations. Even if Wright’s evidence would somehow permit a reasonable inference of racial discrimination, it certainly did not compel the district -13- court to conclude Sacker terminated Wright because of her race. See Williams, 14 F.3d at 1309-10 (concluding a record “devoid of any evidence” that similarly situated comparators were treated differently was insufficient to prove discriminatory motive). “The district court, sitting as the finder of fact, rejected [Wright’s] proof and elected to believe” the testimony of Sacker and Cockrell. Bowen v. Celotex Corp., 292 F.3d 565, 567 (8th Cir. 2002). “The district court was certainly entitled to believe the account given by [hospital] management,” over Wright’s account. Id. (citing Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574). On cross-examination, Wright admitted making several misrepresentations in her employment history and testified she had “somewhat” of “a history of not being truthful.” “[T]he decision to credit the testimony of certain witnesses and not others is virtually never clear error.” Bowles v. Osmose Utils. Servs., Inc., 443 F.3d 671, 674 (8th Cir. 2006). “On the record before us, we cannot say that the credibility determinations and findings of fact made by the district court, and upon which it relied in [concluding Sacker fired Wright for non-discriminatory reasons], are clearly erroneous.” Willis v. Henderson, 262 F.3d 801, 809 (8th Cir. 2001). D. Disparate Treatment—Terms and Conditions of Employment Wright also contends the district court’s “finding that [Wright] was not subjected to disparate terms and conditions of her employment based on race was clearly erroneous.” See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 2000e-2(a)(1) (prohibiting such racial discrimination); Bennett v. Nucor Corp., 656 F.3d 802, 818 (8th Cir. 2011). Asserting she “was placed in a situation where it was not possible for her to perform all of the duties that had been placed upon her,” Wright proposes “[t]he testimony demonstrated that [she] was required to perform jobs that similarly situated white employees were not required to perform.” Wright again fails to show clear error. Wright’s disparate treatment claim is predicated on the hospital (1) requiring Wright to do alone the work she previously shared with Bell; (2) expecting Wright -14- to act “in the capacity” of a supervisor; (3) allowing Caucasian nurses filling in for Wright to perform fewer duties; (4) transferring some of Wright’s janitorial duties to the housekeepers after her termination; (5) replacing Wright with two surgical technologists with fewer duties; and (6) refusing Wright’s request for a transfer to the day shift, while permitting a Caucasian surgical technologist with family issues to transfer to weekends. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court properly found that Wright failed to adduce sufficient evidence that any difference in the terms and conditions of Wright’s employment “was a product of discrimination based on race.” See Williams, 14 F.3d at 1310 (holding the trial court did not clearly err in finding insufficient evidence of pretext where “non-discriminatory factors could have accounted for” any difference in treatment). After hearing trial testimony from Wright, Sacker, and others regarding the hospital’s staffing practices and performance measures, the district court determined the hospital’s profit motive and desire for greater productivity—“pushing work off on Ms. Wright” and “ask[ing] people to do more with less,”—better explained the hospital’s allocation of greater responsibility to Wright. The district court’s finding that the challenges Wright faced in her job were related to “the human cost that comes from a large scale business operation”—not to racial discrimination—is supported by substantial evidence and does not leave us “‘with the definite and firm conviction that an error was made.’” Urban Hotel, 535 F.3d at 879 (quoting Roemmich, 526 F.3d at 353). “In the absence of any evidence of discriminatory intent, . . . it is not the prerogative of the courts or a jury to sit in judgment of employers’ management decisions.” Kiel, 169 F.3d at 1136. -15-