Court Opinion

ID: 9471858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:42:45.286701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:36.783748
License: Public Domain

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I have difficulty in perceiving that plaintiff has been discriminated against at all, and particularly on account of race. To recover in a Title VII action, a plaintiff must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Once this is accomplished, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. If the defendant carries this burden, then the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination. Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-94, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Garner v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 676 F.2d 1223, 1228 (8th Cir.1982); Meyers v. Ford Motor Co., 659 F.2d 91, 93 (8th Cir.1981). The principles for allocating the burden of proof in § 1981 suits are the same as those applicable in Title VII actions. Garner, 676 F.2d at 1228; Meyers, 659 F.2d at 93.
Plaintiff’s record of unexcused absences, which include late arrivals and early departures, is so extreme that I do not think plaintiff made out a prima facie case of discrimination. However, in any event, the defendant tendered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason — excessive absenteeism — for firing the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove that this reason was a pretext for discrimination, and thus failed to sustain his burden of proof, because he failed to prove that he was treated differently than similarly situated white employees. In fact, as an examination of the table below reveals, the evidence showed that there were no similarly situated white employees except for Resinger who also was fired.
Number of Unexcused Absences (Includes Late Arrivals and Early Departures) from Employee Records Introduced into Evidence
GENO RESINGER FEAGER REISING PLAINTIFF
1977 44 98 14 0 101
2 suspensions 1 suspension 1 suspension
1978 40 44 45 50 114
reprimand 1 suspension 1 suspension 3 suspensions
1979 17 43 27 38 32
reprimand 1 suspension fired
1980 51 27 15
suspension; suspension 1 suspension
fired
i figures fail to take medical absences into account. However, medical absences were excused and to include them in the total is an illegitimate use of statistics. There is no basis for including medical absences in the total because none of the plaintiff’s absences were for medical reasons, and there was no evidence in the record that the medical absences of the other employees were pretextual. In addition, there was evidence on the record that during the time period in question, eleven white employees and only one black employee, the plaintiff, were fired for excessive absenteeism. This does not support a claim of racial discrimination.
*994The plaintiffs attendance record is atrocious. Employers cannot be expected to tolerate records like the plaintiff’s and still stay in business. Further, courts of law should not tolerate the exploitation of civil rights legislation. As noted by the Supreme Court:
“Congress did not intend by Title VII ... to guarantee a job to every person ' regardless of qualifications .... What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.”
There are societal as well as personal interests on both sides of this equation. The broad, overriding interest, shared by employer, employee, and consumer, is efficient and trustworthy [performance] assured through fair and racially neutral employment and personnel decisions.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800-01, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1823-24, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1972), quoting, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429, 91 S.Ct. 849, 852, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). The plaintiff certainly was neither an efficient nor trustworthy worker; by his own action he strayed so far from that norm that he deserved to be fired. Civil rights legislation was intended to protect conscientious, moderately productive employees from race and sex discrimination; it was not intended to protect irresponsible employees from the natural consequences of their behavior. I would reverse.