Opinion ID: 2722688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ms. Tabor’s Disparate Impact Claim

Text: Ms. Tabor had the burden to show that the challenged employment practice— the GDCP—caused a disparate impact on female employees seeking promotions from customer service jobs to outside sales Account Manager positions. See Tabor, 703 F.3d at 1222. For her statistical evidence to be reliable, it had to “isolate and identify the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities.” Id. at 1223 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The requirement to isolate the challenged employment practice is important because it goes directly to causation. . . . [A] plaintiff cannot establish her claim simply by showing that, at the bottom line, there is an imbalance in the work force. The imbalance must actually be a result of the challenged employment practice. Id. at 1223-24 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court found that Hilti’s GDCP and its interview process are separate processes. It then held that, because Ms. Tabor’s statistical analysis failed to isolate the GDCP from the interview process, the evidence did not show that the disparate impact was caused by the GDCP. The court ultimately ruled that Ms. Tabor had not carried her burden to demonstrate that the GDCP caused a disparate impact on the protected group. -5- The district court did not commit clear error in concluding that Hilti’s GDCP and interview process are separate. We do not reach Ms. Tabor’s second contention that the GDCP and the interview process were not capable of separation for analysis because she did not raise that issue in the district court. To better understand Ms. Tabor’s contentions, we begin our analysis with a summary of the district court’s relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Ms. Tabor alleged that “the GDCP was the employment practice responsible for the alleged disparate impact.” Aplt. App., Vol. V at 1574. The district court found that the “GDCP tracks different aspects of an employee’s readiness to promote, and is made up of two components: the Performance Management Process (‘PMP’) and the Strategic Management Development (‘SMD’) process.” Id. at 1570-71. Under the PMP, a Hilti manager evaluates an employee’s past performance and sets her goals going forward. The SMD process includes ratings assessing an employee’s mobility (M-rating) and her promotability (P-rating). For example, an M1-D rating means the employee is “[r]eady to move anywhere domestically.” Id. at 1572. An employee with a P1 rating is considered “[r]eady for next development step within 12 months.” Id. The court further found that “The Red Thread Dimensions are Hilti’s ‘core values’ that run through everything in the organization and its employee -6- management.” Id. at 1573 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Red Thread Dimensions consist of six criteria: “Understanding and Defining what need[s] to be done,” “Getting things done,” “Working with Others,” “Developing Yourself & Others,” “Functional Expertise,” and “Understanding the Business.” Id. These dimensions “are interwoven into both components of the GDCP[:] the PMP and SMD processes.” Id. at 1574. They are also “interwoven into the interview process. Interviewers rate a candidate on a scale of 1-5 based on the interviewer’s judgment of whether the candidate meets or exceeds the criteria for successful job performance within each of the dimensions.” Id. (citation omitted). Importantly, the district court also found that “[t]he SMD process identifies employees who are interested in promotional opportunities within Hilti,” and that “[t]he output of the SMD process is a ‘pool’ or list of employees used as a management tool to track employees interested in promotions.” Id. at 1571. The court further found that “[t]he potential candidates on the SMD list must interview and compete for future jobs. Thus, the promotional process for prospective Account Managers involves both the GDCP and a separate interview process. The SMD process and the interview process are different processes.” Id. (citation omitted). b. Facts Regarding Ms. Tabor’s Statistical Analysis The district court noted that Ms. Tabor’s expert analysis found “a statistically significant (at a 95% confidence level) disparate impact based on sex when reviewing Account Managers hired [during the relevant time periods] compared to the proxy -7- feeder group [of all Base Market employees].” Id. at 1579. But as we discuss below, the district court did not credit this testimony. c. Facts Regarding Ms. Tabor The district court found that Ms. Tabor worked for Hilti in customer service positions beginning in January 2006. As of April 2007, she had expressed an interest in becoming a customer service Team Leader. She was rated a P1 under the SMD process at that time. During the third quarter of 2007, Ms. Tabor decided she wanted to pursue promotion to an Account Manager position. She applied to be an Account Manager in the fall of 2007, and interviewed for jobs located in two different cities in November of that year. Three candidates were interviewed—two women and one man. The other candidates were both offered Account Manager positions; Ms. Tabor was not. Ms. Tabor’s PMP review dated January 31, 2008, indicated she was mobile with a geographic preference for five states. Her review predicted that she would be an Account Manager by the first or second quarter of 2008. Ms. Tabor resigned from Hilti effective April 5, 2008.
The court determined that, “[b]ecause the GDCP is an employee development process that generates a talent pool of internal candidates who may be interviewed for promotions, it functions as an employment practice.” Aplt. App., Vol. V at 1583. But the court held that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the GDCP caused a disparate impact. -8- The court initially held that Ms. Tabor’s expert statistical analysis was “methodologically sound and reliable.” Id. Due to a lack of data indicating which Hilti employees had actually applied for Account Manager positions, the court concluded that Ms. Tabor’s analysis had identified a proper proxy for the applicant pool for those jobs, specifically three categories of customer service positions that Hilti considered the “Base Market.” Id. at 1584. The statistical analysis also “controlled for important variables other than sex that could impact promotion rates.” Id. As a result of Hilti’s incomplete data, the court held that Ms. Tabor’s failure to control for SMD P- and M-ratings did not render the analysis unreliable. The court held, however, that Ms. Tabor’s statistical analysis “did not isolate the GDCP.” Id. at 1585. It elaborated as follows: [The expert] report compares eventual Account Managers to the proxy of Base Market employees. The GDCP outputs a pool of potentially promotable employees. To move from Base Market to Account Manager requires an employee to go through an additional process – the interview process – which is separate from the GDCP. And external applicants are not directly subject to the GDCP at all. Id. The court concluded that, “[b]ecause [the expert analysis] does not isolate the GDCP from the interview process, the disparate impact may be caused by one or both of those processes. And without knowing which of those processes cause[s] the alleged disparate impact, the court would be unable to fashion an appropriate equitable remedy.” Id. Ultimately, the court held that “[b]ecause the statistical evidence does not isolate the GDCP, [Ms.] Tabor has not carried her burden of -9- demonstrating that the GDCP causes a disparate impact on female feeder pool applicants who apply for outside sales Account Manager positions.” Id. at 1586. The district court further determined that Ms. Tabor was not affected by the GDCP: “Tabor applied for an Account Manager position, participated in the GDCP, earned the highest [P-]rating possible, and interviewed for the Account Manager positions. Thus, through the GDCP, Tabor secured an interview for the Account Manager positions.” Id. at 1587. The court concluded that the decision not to hire Ms. Tabor as an Account Manager “resulted from the interview process, not the GDCP. Therefore, even if [Ms.] Tabor had demonstrated the GDCP caused a disparate impact on female Account Manager applicants, that discrimination would not have applied to her personally.” Id.
“In an appeal from a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Keys Youth Serv., Inc. v. City of Olathe, 248 F.3d 1267, 1274 (10th Cir. 2001).2 The district court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous only if they are “without factual support in the record, or if the appellate court, after reviewing all the evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. If there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” 2 Ms. Tabor does not address in her opening brief the standard of review applicable to each of her claims, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(B). - 10 - Curtis v. Okla. City Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 147 F.3d 1200, 1217 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable standard of review for a claim of error in a disparate impact case “depends upon the basis of the alleged error.” Villanueva v. Carere, 85 F.3d 481, 486 (10th Cir. 1996). We review for clear error the district court’s factual determination that Hilti’s GDCP and interview processes are separate processes. See id. at 486-87 (applying clear error review to factual findings underlying the court’s disparate impact determination). We review de novo the district court’s holding that Ms. Tabor did not satisfy her burden to show a disparate impact because her statistical analysis failed to isolate the GDCP. See id. (holding appellate court reviews district court’s “method of analysis” de novo). 4. The District Court’s Finding that Hilti’s GDCP and its Interview Process are Separate Processes was not Clearly Erroneous Ms. Tabor asserts there is no evidence that the interview process and the GDCP are separate processes. She maintains that the interview is a component of the GDCP and that all GDCP components are interrelated through the Red Thread Dimensions. She fails, however, to show that the district court’s finding on this issue was clearly erroneous. Khesa Pinkard, a former Regional Manager with Hilti (and plaintiff’s witness), testified that the GDCP consists of the PMP and the SMD, intertwined with the Red Thread Dimensions. Aplt. App., Vol. III at 683-84; 689-90. She stated, as well, that - 11 - a document titled Hilti’s SMD & Red Thread Process Manual outlines the GDCP. Id. at 685. That process manual cautions employees that “[t]he SMD process never guarantees a promotion to an individual. The output is a ‘pool’ of potential candidates that will need to interview and compete for future jobs!” Id., Vol. II at 425. Ms. Tabor’s statistical analysis was intended to demonstrate a disparate impact on women caused by the GDCP. Her expert witness testified regarding his understanding of the GDCP, stating that it included “coaching,” “feedback,” and “evaluations.” Id., Vol. III at 984. He also indicated that the SMD & Red Thread Process Manual described what he understood to be the GDCP. Id. at 985. David Perkins, a director with Hilti, testified that the SMD process and the interview process are separate processes. Id., Vol. IV at 1275. Christy Graybill, another Hilti director, testified that the SMD is not a selection process; rather, “[i]t helps coach and develop our team members in their career path.” Id. at 1326. She stated that the outcome of the SMD process is to provide “a talent pool from which we’ve identified candidates who are ready to take on a next role and as soon as they’re able to interview for a next position.” Id. Addressing the SMD & Red Thread Process Manual, see id. at 1329, Ms. Graybill testified the process described in the manual is designed to help employees get into the interview pool for positions they are interested in, and that it does not impact who is actually selected for a competitive job, id. at 1331-32. She also made clear that, in addition to promoting - 12 - from within, Hilti also fills Account Manager positions through external hires. Id. at 1389. The district court found that the GDCP is made up of two components: the PMP and the SMD. It concluded that the SMD process outputs a pool of employees interested in promotion to other positions within Hilti, who “must interview and compete for future jobs. Thus, the promotional process for prospective Account Managers involves both the GDCP and a separate interview process. The SMD process and the interview process are different processes.” Id., Vol. V at 1571 (citation omitted). The court concluded further that “[t]he GDCP applie[s] only to internal applicants, and thus [does] not apply to all prospective Account Managers.” Id. at 1574. Based on the evidence presented at trial and the reasonable inferences therefrom, the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. 5. Ms. Tabor Failed to Raise in the District Court her Contention that the GDCP and the Interview Process are not “Capable of Separation for Analysis” Title VII provides that a plaintiff must “demonstrate that each particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate impact.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i). But the statute provides for an exception to that burden if the plaintiff can instead “demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis.” Id. In that case, “the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.” Id. - 13 - Ms. Tabor contends that, even if the GDCP and the interview process are separate processes, the district court erred by presuming that the interview process is capable of analytic isolation from the GDCP components. In that way it thereby erred in concluding that she failed to carry her burden to prove a disparate impact caused by the GDCP. She argues that all of the components of the GDCP and the interview process are interrelated and tightly integrated through the use of overlapping criteria, namely the Red Thread Dimensions. As a result, she maintains, the GDCP and the interview process are not capable of separation for analysis. See, e.g., Muñoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291, 304 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[W]here a promotion system uses tightly integrated and overlapping criteria, it may be difficult as a practical matter for plaintiffs to isolate the particular step responsible for observed discrimination.”). And she contends that the district court erred in presuming otherwise. Under § 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i), it was Ms. Tabor’s burden to demonstrate that the GDCP and the interview process are not capable of separation for analysis and should be analyzed as one employment practice. She argued in the district court that the elements of the GDCP are not capable of separation for analysis, and she does not assert on appeal that the district court failed to treat the GDCP as a single employment practice. But she did not raise that contention with respect to the GDCP and the interview process. “[O]ur general rule is not to address arguments that were not first presented to the district court.” Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183, - 14 - 1198 n.2 (10th Cir. 2006) (declining to address contention that evidence was “sufficient to trigger subsection 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i),” when plaintiffs failed to show they raised that issue in the district court); see also Utah Animal Rights Coal. v. Salt Lake Cnty., 566 F.3d 1236, 1244 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e generally do not consider new theories on appeal—even those that fall under the same general category as one that was presented in the district court.”). We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, the final pretrial order for the bench trial on Ms. Tabor’s disparate impact claim identified the GDCP as the challenged employment practice, Aplt. App., Vol. II at 392, and listed as an issue to be tried: “Whether the elements of defendants’ decision-making process are capable of separation for analysis and, if so, whether the court should analyze the decisionmaking process as one employment practice,” id. at 394. Hilti argued in closing that the evidence showed the GDCP and the interview process are separate processes and that the GDCP is not a selection process. The district court indicated at that time that it was struggling with the question of what aspect of the GDCP Ms. Tabor contended was the cause of the disparate impact. Then, in her post-trial brief, Ms. Tabor described the GDCP as made up of the PMP, the SMD, and the Red Thread Dimensions. See id., Vol. V at 1539. She did not mention the interview process. Ms. Tabor acknowledged the district court’s request that she pinpoint what aspect of the GDCP caused the disparate impact. See id. at 1540. She argued that the court should characterize the GDCP as a single - 15 - employment practice because the GDCP is an overly subjective process lacking uniform criteria and providing supervisors with unbridled discretion. She continued by describing the overly subjective aspects of the SMD and the PMP, again not mentioning the interview process. See id. at 1540-42. Thus, Ms. Tabor did not indicate to the district court that she was “attempting to make the required showing of analytical inseparability,” Carpenter, 456 F.3d at 1198 n.2, specifically with regard to the GDCP and the interview process, and the district court did not make any ruling on that issue. We therefore decline to address her argument for the first time on appeal. We affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of Hilti on Ms. Tabor’s disparate impact claim.3