Opinion ID: 2971784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Smith - Failure to Promote

Text: Smith also claims racial discrimination in SEIU’s failure to give her a two-step promotion from senior organizer in training to organizing coordinator. To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination based upon a failure to promote, Smith must demonstrate that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for and was qualified for a promotion; (3) she was considered for and denied the promotion; and (4) other employees of similar qualifications who were not members of the protected class received promotions at the time Smith’s request for promotion was denied. Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 562-63 (6th Cir. 2000). SEIU argues that Smith failed to establish a prima facie case because there were no vacant coordinator positions in March 2001. Thus, SEIU claims Smith never applied for and was never denied a promotion. Smith responds that a position must have been open which she was denied because in August 2001, Clark was placed in a coordinator position in the central region. Even if we accept Smith’s reasoning, Smith has not established a prima facie case because Clark was not similarly situated. For two employees to be considered similarly-situated, the similarities between the plaintiff and the other employee must exist “in all relevant aspects of their respective No. 03-1916 12 employment circumstances.” Leadbetter v. Gilley, 385 F.3d 683, 691 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Differences in job title, responsibilities, experience, and work record can be used to determine whether two employees are similarly situated. Id. We conclude that Clark was not similarly situated to Smith because Clark had previous experience as an organizing coordinator. Thus, Clark was not promoted to the coordinator position. Instead, she was returning to a position she held before leaving to work for a local union affiliate. Because Smith failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact to establish that she was treated differently than a similarly situated nonprotected employee, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Smith’s failure-to-promote claim.