Opinion ID: 446834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: promotion of a member of plaintiff's protected class

Text: 6 In order to prevail in a Title VII disparate treatment case, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden of production then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. If the defendant carries its burden, the plaintiff is then afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that the  'assigned reason' was 'a pretext or discriminatory in its application.'  Lynn v. Regents of the University of California, 656 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 807, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 823, 103 S.Ct. 53, 74 L.Ed.2d 59 (1982). In the present case, the district court did not examine AT & T's articulated nondiscriminatory reason--that Gonzales was better qualified--or consider whether Diaz's evidence sufficiently rebutted this defense 2 because it determined that Diaz could not, as a matter of law, establish a prima facie case. Its reason for reaching this conclusion was that the person ultimately hired was a member of the same protected class as Diaz. 7 In order to establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must offer evidence that give[s] rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1094, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). One common way a plaintiff can establish an inference of discrimination is by demonstrating that the four requirements of the McDonnell Douglas test are met: 8 (1) that the plaintiff belongs to a class protected by Title VII; 9 (2) that the plaintiff applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; 10 (3) that, despite being qualified, the plaintiff was rejected; and 11 (4) that, after the plaintiff's rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of comparable qualifications. 12 See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). 13 Under the traditional McDonnell Douglas test, the inference of discrimination is not dependent upon an examination of who, if anyone, was promoted instead of the plaintiff. Ordinarily, the fourth element of McDonnell Douglas, is met whenever the employer continues to consider other applicants whose qualifications are comparable to the plaintiff's after refusing to consider or rejecting the plaintiff. Diaz was deemed promotable but the Operation Manager did not consider him for the position although he subsequently considered comparably qualified applicants. 3 Thus, Diaz satisfied the fourth element of the McDonnell Douglas test as it is ordinarily understood and applied. 14 The district court's determination that Diaz failed to establish a prima facie case was based on its implicit conclusion that the Supreme Court's articulation of the McDonnell Douglas test should not be read literally. The district court held that the fourth element of McDonnell Douglas cannot be met unless the challenged position is filled by someone outside the plaintiff's protected class. Thus, the district court concluded that Diaz failed to meet the McDonnell Douglas standard. AT & T asks us to affirm the summary judgment order either by endorsing the district court's construction of McDonnell Douglas or by adopting a closely related line of reasoning. AT & T's alternative argument is that even if McDonnell Douglas is read as the Supreme Court apparently meant it to be, and even if, therefore, Diaz met that test, it is not sufficient in all instances simply to satisfy the McDonnell Douglas standard. AT & T contends, rather, that whenever the person who is selected for the position is a member of the same protected class, the plaintiff is precluded from establishing a prima facie case. 4 We reject the reasoning both of the district court and of AT & T. 15 In order to preclude a plaintiff from recovery in all cases in which the challenged position is filled by a member of the same protected class, we would have to assume that Title VII protects only group rights. It is, of course, true that Title VII was designed to deter and remedy discrimination on the basis of group characteristics and to remove barriers that favor certain groups over others. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-30, 91 S.Ct. 849, 852-53, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971); see also United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 207-09, 99 S.Ct. 2721, 2729-30, 61 L.Ed.2d 480 (1979) (private employer's race-conscious affirmative action plan, designed to eliminate conspicuous racial imbalance and traditional patterns of segregation, not barred by Title VII); Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 748 F.2d 1308, 1314 (9th Cir.1984) (public agency's affirmative action plan lawful and necessary to remedy long-standing imbalances in work force); cf. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 482, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 2776, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C.J.) (Congress' remedial actions need not be color-blind). 5 But, at the same time, Title VII's focus on the rights of individual members of protected classes is unambiguous. Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 103 S.Ct. 3492, 3496, 77 L.Ed.2d 1236 (1983) (quoting Los Angeles Department of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 708, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 1375, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978)). It is clear that Congress never intended to give an employer license to discriminate against some employees on the basis of race or sex merely because he favorably treats other members of the employees' group. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 455, 102 S.Ct. 2525, 2535, 73 L.Ed.2d 130 (1982); see also Peters v. Lieuallen, 693 F.2d 966, 970 (9th Cir.1982) (The fact that a particular screening device admits some members of a protected class into pool of job candidates does not demonstrate an absence of discrimination.). Title VII protects individuals, as well as groups, from discrimination on the basis of group characteristics. 16 We have already made it clear in another context that a plaintiff is not precluded from bringing suit merely because a person of the same protected class is selected for the challenged position. In Douglas v. Anderson, 656 F.2d 528 (9th Cir.1981), we held that a plaintiff suing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-634 (1982), may establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas even though the position was filled by a person who was also within the class protected by the ADEA. See 656 F.2d at 532 (requirement that person selected to fill challenged position not be a member of plaintiff's protected class adds a gloss that is absent from McDonnell Douglas ). Other circuits have interpreted the fourth element of McDonnell Douglas in the same manner, both in ADEA cases, see, e.g., Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1013 & n. 9 (1st Cir.1979), and in Title VII cases, see, e.g., Jones v. Western Geophysical Co. of America, 669 F.2d 280, 284 (5th Cir.1982) (Black plaintiff's replacement by another Black may have been a pretextual device and did not preclude finding an inference of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the fourth element of McDonnell Douglas ). We see no reason to read McDonnell Douglas differently in the Title VII context than we do when suit is brought under the ADEA. 17 We need not now decide whether identity of class membership may ever be relevant to a determination whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas test. Rather, we need say only that, contrary to the district court's assumption, such identity does not automatically preclude a plaintiff from meeting the test. When the individual who was promoted receives the challenged position only after the plaintiff has filed a discrimination charge, the fact that both individuals are members of the same protected class does not rebut the otherwise established inference of discrimination. In the case before us, there is no bar to plaintiff's establishing a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. 18 Contrary to AT & T's suggestion, we think it clear that a plaintiff who satisfies the four elements of McDonnell Douglas has necessarily established the requisite inference of discrimination. Equally important, however, it is possible for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case without satisfying the McDonnell Douglas test. Compliance with that standard is only one method of establishing a prima facie case. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1866, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977); Gay v. Waiters' & Dairy Lunchmen's Union, 694 F.2d 531, 550 (9th Cir.1982); Lynn v. Regents of the University of California, 656 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir.1981). In McDonnell Douglas itself the Supreme Court noted that, because of the variations in factual situations, plaintiffs in some cases may seek to establish a prima facie case by other means. See 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 13; see also Note, Sexual Harassment Claims of Abusive Work Environment Under Title VII, 97 Harv.L.Rev. 1449, 1454-59 (1984) (inappropriateness of McDonnell Douglas test in sexual harassment cases). A plaintiff may demonstrate an inference of discrimination in whatever manner is appropriate in the particular circumstances. See Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1014 n. 12 (1st Cir.1979). 6 19 The burden of establishing a prima facie case is not designed to be onerous. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. at 1094. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff need only provide evidence that suggests that the employment decision was based on a discriminatory criterion illegal under the [Civil Rights] Act. Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 358, 97 S.Ct. at 1866. Diaz presented substantial evidence to support the inference that AT & T acted in a discriminatory fashion. Although he has frequently filled in temporarily as an Operations Supervisor, Diaz has never been offered this position on a permanent basis. He is as qualified as other candidates who were considered for the job, see supra note 3, and may even be able to demonstrate that he was more qualified than the individual who was promoted, see supra note 2. Furthermore, Diaz has introduced evidence of AT & T's complete failure in the past to promote Mexican-Americans to the Position of Operations Supervisor in the Tucson facility. See supra ote 1. The fact that AT & T eventually promoted a Mexican-American to the position that Diaz sought, after Diaz filed his state discrimination claim, does not automatically remove the presumption of discrimination created by this other evidence. Cf. EEOC v. Brown & Root, Inc., 688 F.2d 338, 340 (5th Cir.1982) (female plaintiff who was replaced by another woman could establish an inference of discrimination without meeting traditional elements of McDonnell Douglas test). 20 The district court erred in holding that because the person promoted was a member of the same protected class as Diaz, Diaz was barred from establishing a prima facie case.