Opinion ID: 421169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: capaci's individual claim

Text: 54 In her individual claim Andra Capaci asserted that K & B had discriminated against her by denying her promotion into management, subjecting her to sexual harassment, and harassing and discharging her in retaliation for filing discrimination charges. In a careful and thorough discussion the trial court rejected most of the allegations, but agreed with Capaci that K & B had deliberately built up her personnel file with disciplinary matters after the charge was filed, with the purpose and effect of imparting to Capaci a sense of harassment. 525 F.Supp. at 342-50. 55 Capaci rested her case on March 5, 1979, after many days of trial. On March 26, 1979, during the defendant's case in chief, Capaci's attorney was removed from the case, held in contempt and suspended from practice in the trial judge's court for his behavior during the period of the trial. Her case was severed from the EEOC case and trial proceeded for five days, during which Capaci had no legal representation. More than a year later, on April 14, 1980, Capaci's rebuttal case was presented by a new attorney and the trial came to an end. Several arguments on appeal concern the individual claim. 56
57 On the last day of trial the plaintiff's new attorney attempted to introduce into evidence the personnel files of 123 males. The purpose of this evidence was to demonstrate that men who committed acts similar to those allegedly committed by Capaci were treated more leniently than she, and that the reasons offered to explain her treatment were hence pretextual. The trial judge refused to allow the evidence to be introduced in rebuttal, because he found that the files should have been introduced during the case in chief, if at all, under the circumstances of the case. 58 The plaintiff asserts that this evidence was legitimate proof of pretext, and as such was properly offered in rebuttal under the three-step approach for deciding Title VII cases set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). That case established that once a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of discrimination, the defendant must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection. 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d at 678. Once this second step has been met, the plaintiff must ... be afforded a fair opportunity to show that [defendant's] stated reason for [plaintiff's] rejection was in fact pretext. 411 U.S. at 804, 93 S.Ct. at 1825, 36 L.Ed.2d at 679. Capaci sees these three steps in McDonnell Douglas as corresponding to the three major stages of the traditional trial: plaintiff's case in chief, defendant's case in chief, and plaintiff's rebuttal. She argues, therefore, that the trial judge was incorrect in viewing the offered evidence of pretext as inappropriate at the rebuttal stage. 59 We do not believe that McDonnell Douglas requires presentation of proof in a strictly ordered fashion corresponding to the three traditional stages of trial. The tripartite arrangement is a useful tool in analyzing these controversies, but it should not be construed so as to divide a single cause of action into three different cases. Whack v. Peabody & Wind Engineering Co., 595 F.2d 190, 193 (3rd Cir.1979). Although cases are analyzed in terms of these three phases, there is no requirement that the evidence be introduced in such compartmentalized form. Worthy v. United States Steel Corp., 616 F.2d 698, 701 (3d Cir.1980). The McDonnell Douglas decision, did not purport to create an inflexible formulation, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1866, 52 L.Ed.2d 396, 429 (1977), and sets out a method that was never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic, but instead is merely a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination, Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949, 57 L.Ed.2d 957, 967 (1978). Most trials would be lopsided indeed if plaintiffs were confined to making the usually simple presentation of proof required to establish a prima facie case 9 in their case in chief, leaving all other complex questions of pretext, disparate treatment, legitimate grounds for rejection of the plaintiff, prior history of discrimination, etc., to be litigated in later stages of the trial. 60 In short, McDonnell Douglas did not radically alter the ordinary rules of evidence, procedure and practice followed by the courts in all trials. The trial court may, subject to review only for abuse of discretion, maintain the pace of the trial, Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439, 442 (5th Cir.1979), determine the relevancy and materiality of evidence, United States v. Ashley, 555 F.2d 462, 465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 869, 98 S.Ct. 210, 54 L.Ed.2d 147 (1977); United States v. Calles, 482 F.2d 1155, 1160 (5th Cir.1973), and decide generally whether or not to admit evidence, Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1374 (5th Cir.1981). 61 For several reasons we do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to admit the personnel files. Based on the extensive discovery and pretrial order, the plaintiff's attorney was fully aware of the defendant's proffered reasons for failing to promote and discharging her. The questions of disparate treatment and pretext were intertwined under the facts of this case, and were extensively litigated in the plaintiff's case in chief. Employee files and the testimony of many witnesses were introduced at that time. The court made specific findings on issues of pretext in lack of promotion and discharge. 525 F.Supp. at 345, 350. All of the files the plaintiff's attorney wished to introduce were in the courtroom throughout the trial. The trial judge felt that the new attorney, with a complete transcript of the thirty-four days of trial that had transpired a year earlier, was simply attempting to retry the case, as he made clear on the last day of trial: 62 I know, but you reviewed the record, and you're second guessing Mr. Schumacher. You are saying now, well he didn't try the case right. He didn't try the case so we could win it, so I'm going to try it over again. And that we cannot do. If Mr. Schumacher hadn't been an able lawyer I might, well, I might have to do it anyhow, but I would be more inclined, but Mr. Schumacher exhausted all this. I was leaning over backwards during that trial to give this plaintiff every opportunity to get her case before me. If you read that record, you could see that I did. 63 We agree that the plaintiff was given ample opportunity to prove her case. 64 Numerous concerns faced the trial judge. He was no doubt concerned that the plaintiff should not benefit from the sins of her previous attorney, to the unfair detriment of the defendant, by having a new attorney with an unusual opportunity to carefully and leisurely review the transcript and to offer a new approach to trying the case. He was faced with legitimate concerns of the defendant and other litigants on his docket to see this case end. The defendant also argued that the files were cumulative, and that they were offered in a vacuum without any testimony that would make for meaningful comparisons or tell the whole story of what happened to the employees reviewed in the files. Under these circumstances we find no error.
65 Capaci argues on appeal that, even without the introduction of the 123 employee files, there was overwhelming evidence that K & B's reasons for her treatment as a pharmacist were pretextual. 66 The reasons given by the defendant for not promoting Capaci were numerous, based in large part on alleged lack of concentration and disorganization, and inability to work well with others. The specific complaints against her included tardiness, excessive time on the telephone, too frequent and prolonged absences from the prescription department for talks with customers, visits to the cosmetic department to assist customers, attention to personal matters and application of makeup while on duty. 525 F.Supp. at 343. 67 Capaci was allegedly fired because of the Lambremont incident one evening in which she: (1) created customer dissatisfaction by taking an inordinate amount of time to fill prescriptions; (2) invited a customer into the prescription department against company policy; (3) offered medication to a customer who was not the person for whom the prescription was made. 68 Capaci argues that males who committed similar acts, such as giving pills to customers, shaving on duty and talking excessively on the phone, had not been disciplined and in some cases had been promoted, and that the two major reasons given by one official for discharge were gross dishonesty and irregularity in dispensing drugs. 69 These comparisons do not render the trial court's findings on pretext clearly erroneous. The plaintiff was portrayed as a singularly inefficient and contentious employee. One executive described her as unstable and immature; another described her attitude after she filed her charge as having placed herself in a protective cocoon. 525 F.Supp. at 350. She was unable to work well with any of her managers or chief pharmacists, and they consistently sought to have her fired or transferred to other stores. Six of these transfers between 1970 and 1973 are chronicled in the district court opinion. 525 F.Supp. at 344-345. One manager described her as probably the worst pharmacist that I ever had working for me. A co-worker stated that I have never worked with another pharmacist who was as disorganized .... she, in comparing her with other pharmacists that I have worked with, had no awareness of trying to fill prescriptions or trying to get the work out. On four occasions prior to filing the charge her superiors endeavored to have her fired. On the last occasion, vice president Feltman, personnel manager Serda, and supervisors LeBlanc and Levet all agreed that she should be terminated, but Sydney Besthoff, III, the president, decided to give her another chance, out of an interest in reducing turnover in the professional staff and a hope that the problems could be overcome. K & B has maintained that the Lambremont incident was the last straw. Under these facts, the court's findings are amply supported.
70 As explained above, Capaci's claim was severed from the EEOC case and the trial proceeded for five days after her attorney was suspended. She now complains that during those five days evidence prejudicial to her case was admitted, and that her due process rights were thus violated. She argues that the trial should have been continued to allow her to seek new counsel, rather than allowing it to proceed without legal representation for her. 71 Decisions regarding continuances and severances of actions are left to the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. American Lease Plans, Inc. v. Silver Sand Co. of Leesburg, 637 F.2d 311, 318 (5th Cir.1981) (continuance); United States v. Swanson, 572 F.2d 523, 528 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 849, 99 S.Ct. 152, 58 L.Ed.2d 152 (1978) (severance); Hertz Corp. v. Cox, 430 F.2d 1365, 1372 (5th Cir.1970) (severance). The trial judge endeavored to protect Ms. Capaci's rights, while letting the other parties continue to litigate their claims. As he stated in court after suspending her attorney: 72 So there will be no misunderstanding, the case of Ms. Capaci is suspended as of now, as of this morning. I will disregard any evidence that has any direct effect upon her case unless it also affects the EEOC's case. As far as her case is concerned, though, I will disregard it until she has her lawyer and her trial is resumed and if necessary we will call back the same witnesses that we are calling now which you think you may need to defend yourself in her case. I am doing this, stating that so that she will have a chance to fully cross-examine any witness which might affect her case. 73 Months later, Capaci had a new attorney, and with the benefit of a transcript of the entire trial to that point, she was allowed to present rebuttal testimony. On appeal, Capaci does not clearly specify any evidence relied upon by the district court in reaching its decision that was introduced during the five days she was without an attorney and that she was not allowed to refute during her rebuttal on the last day of trial. We find no abuse of discretion.
74 After the discrimination charge was filed in 1973 Mr. Feltman issued instructions that unusual occurrences involving Ms. Capaci should be documented in her personnel file. He testified that this effort was not to harass her but to correct the error K & B had made in not having her performance documented previous to the charge. 525 F.Supp. at 347. The court found that [t]he result of his instructions, however, was the building of a file which included reports of trivial, petty, insignificant events involving Capaci, which would never have appeared in the file of another employee. These could serve no purpose other than to impart to Capaci a sense of harassment. Id. K & B argues that it was reasonably justified in documenting unusual occurrences based on its prior experiences with Capaci. While such an argument is plausible, the trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous. Before the charge was filed the plaintiff's file contained only a few complimentary letters from customers and Mr. Besthoff. Two years after the charge the file contained approximately 100 discipline slips.