Opinion ID: 28989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Title VII Failure to Promote Claim

Text: Perez first contends that Region 20's failure to promote him to the position of Database Administrator violates Title VII's prohibition of discrimination in employment on the basis of No. 01-50591 -6- national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (2000). To make out a prima facie case of discrimination based on failure to promote, Perez must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the job he sought; (3) despite his qualifications, Perez was rejected; and (4) after his rejection, the position remained open and Region 20 continued to seek applicants from persons of Perez's qualifications. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Bennett v. Total Minatome Corp., 138 F.3d 1053, 1060 (5th Cir. 1998). If Perez establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Region 20 to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Perez's rejection. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000); McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802. If Region 20 articulates a non-discriminatory reason, Perez must then show that Region 20 did intentionally discriminate, which he may do by demonstrating that Region 20's proffered reason is simply a pretext for discrimination. See Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143, 146-48. The district court found that Perez had made out his prima facie case, but that Region 20 had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its failure to promote Perez. We bypass the serious question whether Perez even met his prima facie burden and address Region 20's articulated reasons for its failure to promote or reclassify Perez. Region 20 argues, and presented summary judgment evidence to the effect that, it did not promote Perez or reclassify his position because the position of Database Administrator within No. 01-50591 -7- the RSCCC group was never approved for funding and, therefore, the position did not exist. The district court found this to be a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the failure to promote Perez and found that Perez had failed to present sufficient evidence to suggest that Region 20's stated reason was false. Perez notes only that another software group at Region 20 did contain a Database Administrator position and that other employees (two Anglo males, one Hispanic woman, one AfricanAmerican male, and one Asian-American woman) were reclassified. Neither fact, nor the argument that underlies them, addresses the inescapable fact that, as Perez admits in his brief, “[a]t the time [he] began requesting the promotion/reclassification, his funded software area (RSCCC group) did not have the position of Database Administrator.” The nonexistence of an available position is a legitimate reason not to promote. See Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358 n.44 (1977) (finding that the “absence of a vacancy in the job sought” is a legitimate reason for not hiring a person for a position). As Perez produced no evidence to disprove this legitimate nondiscriminatory justification for Region 20's failure to promote or reclassify him, the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Perez’s Title VII failure to promote claim.