Opinion ID: 772213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: roh's title vii claim

Text: 20 McDonnell Douglas and its progeny established a burden-shifting regime for analyzing Title VII cases, allocating the burdens of production and persuasion. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981). In a failure to promote case, that comprises proof that i) plaintiff is a member of a protected class, ii) she was qualified for the position she sought, iii) she was rejected, and iv) the position remained open after her rejection or went to a less qualified applicant. Upon such proof a trier of fact presumes discrimination, and the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection. Id. at 253-54. By producing evidence (whether ultimately persuasive or not) of nondiscriminatory reasons, [defendants] sustain[] their burden of production. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993) (emphasis in original). In the nature of things, the determination that a defendant has met its burden of production (and has thus rebutted any legal presumption of intentional discrimination) can involve no credibility assessment. Ibid. When the defendant articulates a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for undertaking an adverse employment action, the plaintiff must introduce evidence that the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination. If the plaintiff does so and proceeds to trial, the McDonnell Douglas framework-- with its presumptions and burdens-- disappear[s], and the sole remaining issue [becomes] discrimination vel non. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2106 (2000) (internal quotations omitted, citing St. Mary's Honor Center and United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714 (1983)). 21 A Court of Appeals should not review the case for whether a prima facie case had been made, but rather, whether the ultimate issue of discriminat[ion] falls in the favor of the Plaintiffs or Defendant. EEOC v. Avery Dennison Corp., 104 F.3d 858, 862 (6th Cir. 1997). Of course, evidence that bears upon elements of the prima facie case can also come into play in assessing the ultimate question of discrimination. Kovacevich v. Kent State Univ., 224 F.3d 806, 825, 827 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Reeves and noting that nothing prevent[s] the court from considering evidence that also bears on that prima facie case as long as it does so in order to address the ultimate question of discrimination). On appeal, Lakeshore argues that Roh's discrimination claim fails as a matter of law because the alleged failure to promote comprised Lakeshore's not offering her a position in an AIT program and she did not meet the educational and experience prerequisites for state permission to enter such program. That is, she was unqualified for the job she sought. 22 At trial, the parties offered differing interpretations of the Rules: Roh argued that simple experience working in or handling the duties of each of the departments sufficed, while Lakeshore argued that the Rules called for managementexperience in each department, in the sense of supervising the work of ordinary department employees. The trial court did not resolve the meaning of the Rules, considering it a fact question for the jury. This was error. Issued under the authority of the General Assembly and regulating the right of citizens to enter a profession, the Rules operate with the force of Tennessee law. The district court should have interpreted the Rules and considered setting forth the facts and circumstances necessary for a candidate such as Roh to satisfy their requirements. Unfortunately, the jury had no guidance in resolving Roh's qualification in terms of her ability to satisfy the Rules' requirements for entering an AIT program other than the expert testimony of a former board member, who stated his interpretation of the Rules. 23 In order to determine whether a reasonable jury could have found Roh qualified for the position she sought, we must resolve whether the evidence adduced at trial supports the conclusion that Roh satisfied the state's requirements for entering an AIT program, as embodied in the Rules. The Rules' language leaves little room for argument: the Rules contemplate supervisory experience, not merely experience doing the work of the various departments. 24 Rule 1020-- 1-- .05(1)(j)(3) requires a candidate with Roh's education to obtain at least two years of acceptable management experience, although Rule 1020-- 1-- .01(1) allows up to six months of that experience to be acquired while completing an approved AIT program. Though not a model of clear drafting, Rule 1020-- 1-- .01(1) defines acceptable management experience, and appears in full supra p. 7. The definition repeatedly focuses on administration, responsible supervisory experience, and similar terms evoking the parent term's core word management. Although much of the defining passage uses permissive language and one sentence declares that 'Acceptable management experience' contemplates experience in all departments or areas of the facility without reiterating that such experience be managerial, the definition as a whole displays an expectation of oversight, instruction, leadership, superintendence, and governance. Merely working in a department does not suffice. See Rule 1020-- 1-- .01(1) (defining acceptable management experience as [t]he actual practice of health care facility administration in an inpatient health care facility with guidance and sharing of responsibilityfrom the administrator . . . . (emphasis added)). In short, the Rules expect management, the very word the definition attempts to define. In terms of requiring that candidates have specific experiences, the Rules call for sharing responsibility with the administrator and obtaining management experience-- not merely functional experience-- in each of the departments in a nursing home. 25 We thus conclude that a Tennessee court would construe the Rules as requiring at least some management or supervisory experience in each of the specified areas in order to satisfy the acceptable management experience requirement for someone with Roh's education. The Rules require 24 months of management experience. Since no more than two-thirds of this experience can come from management in a single department, at least eight months of acceptable management experience must be acquired in departments other than the candidate's primary field. A maximum of six months' experience out of the total twenty-four can be gained during the AIT program itself. Even if we assume--without any evidence on the question-- that the AIT program to which Roh sought admittance would have given her six full months of experience managing the five non-nursing departments, the Rules required her to have eight months of management experience in the five non-nursing departments. Thus, she would necessarily have been required to demonstrate at least two months of supervisory experience outside nursing before she entered the program. 26 Roh admits that she did not have such experience, and nothing in the record supports a finding that she did. She did not serve as an assistant administrator and conceded that she had no experience managing people who worked in any department other than nursing. Roh's assertions in her brief and at oral argument that she was in charge during unspecified periods of the administrator's absence are not born out by the record, as her testimony recounts no more than being the person others usually called when the administrator could not respond. For its part, Lakeshore interpreted this testimony at oral argument to portray Roh as an answering service or some sort of on-call handyman. We need not accept either party's argument, as the testimony in question would not, as a matter of law, permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Roh had two months of acceptable management experience. Nor could a rational trier of fact rely on the former Board member's recognition that his assessment of Roh's qualifications could be out-voted, because other members of the Board could, as a matter of raw power, vote to permit anyone to enter an AIT program, regardless of qualifications. 27 Because Roh's evidence did not carry her burden of proving her qualified for the position she sought, Lakeshore could not, as a matter of law, have discriminated against her in denying her admission to an AIT program. Lakeshore having prevailed on the merits of its appeal, we need not address the district court's exclusion of Lakeshore's impeachment witness on grounds of unfair surprise.