Opinion ID: 149088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Title VII Racial Discrimination

Text: Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual” based on, among other things, “such individual’s race.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In evaluating a Title VII disparate treatment claim supported by circumstantial evidence, as here, we use the Supreme Court’s burden-shifting framework as described in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973). Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1087 (11th Cir. 2004). Under this framework, the plaintiff in a race discrimination failure-to-hire case has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment, which she can do by showing that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied and was qualified for a position that the defendant was seeking to fill; (3) despite her qualifications, she was rejected; and (4) the position was filled with an individual outside of her protected class. Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763, 768 (11th Cir. 2005). If, however, an employer fails to announce a position formally and instead 5 uses informal and subjective procedures to identify a candidate, then a plaintiff need not show that she applied for the position. Id. at 768. Rather, she only has to prove that the employer had “some reason” to consider her for the position. Id. If a prima facie case is established, the employer has the burden to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802-03, 93 S. Ct. at 1824. Once an employer articulates a legitimate non-discriminatory reason, the plaintiff, in order to survive a motion for summary judgment, must show that the proffered reason was a pretext for discrimination. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255-56, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1095 (1981). Here, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in the defendant’s favor on her race discrimination claim because McCaslin failed to satisfy the second prong a prima facie case of race discrimination. McCaslin failed to apply for the position of Assistant Curator of Education. Specifically, McCaslin “applied” for the position of “Slide Organizer” in a 1999 letter to Andrews. The position at issue here, Assistant Curator of Education, was not created until seven years after McCaslin expressed interest. As the district court properly concluded, it is unreasonable to infer that McCaslin’s 1999 letter to the BMA was an application for a position filled almost seven years later. 6 McCaslin contends that the BMA hired the Assistant Curator of Education candidate without advertisement or competition, and therefore, in order to establish a prima facie case, she need not prove that she applied, only that the BMA had some reason to consider her for the position. See Vessels, 408 F.3d at 768. Indeed, the record indicates that the BMA created the position solely for the candidate upon her completion of a master’s degree. However, even if we were to construe this hiring procedure as informal and subjective, McCaslin still fails to satisfy the modified second prong of a prima facie case of racial discrimination because she is nevertheless unqualified to be a candidate for the position. See id. The record reflects that all of the curators employed by the BMA have earned a master’s degree, at minimum. Alternatively, while McCaslin attended the University of Alabama at Birmingham (“UAB”) and studied Art History, she never received an undergraduate degree from UAB or any other university. McCaslin counters by asserting that a degree was not required to be a curator for the BMA because the BMA recently gave a high school student group the title of “BMA Curators.” However, bestowing an honorary title of “Curator” on an unpaid group of student volunteers is considerably different than actually hiring them to be curators in charge of initiating and administering the BMA’s public programs. Accordingly, McCaslin does not possess the requisite qualifications that would 7 give the BMA some reason to consider her for the position of Assistant Curator of Education. Furthermore, we need not make a determination of whether the defendants’ had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for hiring another individual for the position because McCaslin failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp, 411 U.S. at 802-03, 93 S. Ct. at 1824. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on McCaslin’s racial discrimination claim.