Court Opinion

ID: 9479440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:18:44.56558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:02.720733
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent. I concur only in that part of. the majority opinion finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to recuse itself. I would reverse the district court’s holding that appellees did not discharge Adella Gray from her position as academic coordinator for the University of Arkansas football team because of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) (1988).
The district court erroneously treated this case as a circumstantial evidence case, requiring that the burdens of production and persuasion be allocated as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 *1403U.S. 792, 802-03, 804-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 1825, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (McDonnell Douglas) and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-95, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (Burdine). Because Gray presented direct evidence of intentional gender-based discrimination against her by appellees, the burdens of production and persuasion should have shifted to appellees to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they would have made the same decision to terminate Gray’s employment had they not been motivated to do so by the unlawful discriminatory reason. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) {Mt. Healthy); see Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 1789-91, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (Hopkins) (approving Mt. Healthy same decision analysis in Title VII mixed motive cases). The district court disingenuously avoided the Mt. Healthy analysis by finding that all of the direct evidence of intentional gender-based discrimination presented by Gray was not credible.
The decision by the Supreme Court to adopt the Mt. Healthy same decision test in mixed motive cases such as Hopkins leads to the inescapably logical conclusion that the same decision test should likewise be applied in cases where direct evidence of discrimination is presented as the sole motivating factor which led to the adverse employment action:
It would be illogical, indeed ironic, to hold a Title VII plaintiff presenting direct evidence of a defendant’s intent to discriminate to a more stringent burden of proof, or to allow a defendant to meet that direct proof by merely articulating, but not proving legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action.
Bell v. Birmingham Linen Serv., 715 F.2d 1552, 1556-57 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1204, 104 S.Ct. 2385, 81 L.Ed.2d 344 (1984); accord Ramirez v. Sloss, 615 F.2d 163, 168 (5th Cir.1980) (“In the rare situation in which the evidence establishes that an employer openly discriminates against an individual it is not necessary to apply the mechanical formula of McDonnell Douglas to establish an inference of intentional discrimination; the showing has already been made directly.”); see also Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 825 F.2d 458, 470 (D.C.Cir.1987) (mixed motive case holding that when plaintiff offers “direct evidence that her gender was a significant motivating factor in [adverse employment decision affecting her] ... the utility of the McDonnell Douglas-Burdine analysis is at an end, for the question is no longer whether plaintiff was ‘treat[ed] ... less favorably than others because of ... [her] sex,’ but rather whether that less favorable treatment in fact caused the adverse [employment] decision”) (quoting International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335-36 n. 15, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1854-55 n. 15, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977)), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (approving same decision analysis in Title VII mixed motive cases).
Because Gray has already established liability via the direct evidence of discrimination she presented at trial, see Hopkins, 109 S.Ct. at 1788 n. 11, evidence that was improperly disregarded by the district court, this case should be remanded only to determine the nature of the relief available to Gray. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that the McDonnell Douglas standard is the correct analytical framework in a direct evidence case such as this, Gray established by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination articulated by appellees were merely pretextual and were offered to obscure the unlawful reason for her discharge. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804, 93 S.Ct. at 1825. Because the district court improperly allocated the burdens of proof and persuasion and erroneously found that no unlawful discrimination had occurred, its judgment should be reversed, and the case should be remanded with instructions to find in favor of Gray and to determine what relief should be awarded to Gray.
Regardless of which analytical framework should have been applied by the district court, the issue of discriminatory intent is an ultimate question of fact to be *1404decided from all of the evidence before the district court, United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-16, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1481-82, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983), and is reversible if the reviewing court “concludes that [its] finding[s] [of fact are] clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 290, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1791, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). While I recognize that the reviewing court must give great deference to the fact-finding function and credibility determinations of the district court, Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-75, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511-12, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), it is not our function to act as a rubber stamp when such determinations are clearly erroneous. Estate of Palmer v. Commissioner, 839 F.2d 420, 423 (8th Cir.1988) (citations omitted); Jenkins ex rel. Agyei v. Missouri, 807 F.2d 657, 696 n. 3 (8th Cir.1986) (Lay, C.J., dissenting). Factual findings are clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, after examining all of the evidence, “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 393-95, 68 S.Ct. 525, 541-42, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). I am left with such a conviction.
In my view, the district court’s primary error lies in the fact that it totally disregarded as not credible the tape-recorded conversations between Gray and Lon Farrell, then Assistant Director of Athletics for the University of Arkansas (University), that Gray introduced into evidence. The reasoning of the district court was two-fold. First, it apparently takes a dim view of anyone who surreptitiously gathers evidence by recording conversations regardless of the exigencies of the particular situation which may lead one to do so. Gray v. University of Arkansas, 658 F.Supp. 709, 720-21 (W.D.Ark.1987) (Gray I). The district court seems to have relied on its subjective feelings concerning such evidence despite the fact that such conversations are admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed.R.Evid.Rules 1101-1103. Second, it found Farrell’s statements to be wholly without credibility because he was suffering from emotional illness at the time he made them. Gray I, 658 F.Supp. at 719. Neither one of these reasons, alone or taken together, is sufficient to totally discredit Farrell’s statements although they may properly affect the weight to be given the statements.
The fact that Gray secretly recorded personal and phone conversations between Farrell and her was not due to some sort of inherent character flaw as the district court seems to suggest. Rather, it was a practical response to the exigencies of the situation in which she found herself. Once Gray refused to sign the resignation letter presented to her by Farrell, she was in an openly adversarial position with the athletic department. It surely became apparent to Farrell at that time that Gray was contemplating some sort of legal action against appellees. Gray even stated that she had consulted with an attorney. Id. at 718. From that time forward, it was extremely unlikely that Farrell would incriminate either the athletic department or himself by openly admitting that gender discrimination was the reason for Gray’s termination. This assumption is borne out by the fact that Farrell altered the personnel action form regarding Gray’s termination. On August 9, 1985, Farrell went to the University EEO office and altered part of the reason for Gray’s termination to “Also we need a person_” (Emphasis added.) It is unclear what the altered portion said beforehand, but in light of all the surrounding circumstances, the most reasonable construction is that prior to the alteration, it stated, “Also we need a man_” (Emphasis added.) The district court did not view this alteration as probative evidence because of Farrell’s emotional illness. Id. I, on the other hand, find it to be highly probative both of the fact that Farrell was covering up evidence of gender discrimination and of the fact that he was thinking clearly enough during the time period during which he made the incriminating statements to Gray that the district court should have given credence to his statements.
Farrell’s actions in this regard are a blatant example of tampering with potential evidence. Compare the district court’s con*1405cern about the appearance of handwritten notes made by Gray after her May 20, 1985, conversation with Coach Hatfield. Id. at 728. Contrary to the finding by the district court that Gray did not avail herself of the opportunity to explain the condition of these notes, see id., the trial transcript shows that Gray did just that. A careful review of the record indicates that the “cut and paste” condition of the notes was most likely due to their being copied on different sized paper than the originals. Tr. at 4-128 to 4-139. Further, when a person makes notes of a conversation after the conversation ends, it is perfectly natural to make additions after having had time to reflect and remember. The district court’s concern about the interlineation of Gray’s notes is puzzling in light of the fact that it was not at all concerned about Farrell’s blatant erasure and alteration of an official document on file with the University EEO office, a document that has everything to do with the merits of the case.
Gray did nothing immoral or illegal. What she did do was gather evidence of unlawful discrimination from one well-positioned to know, the University assistant athletic director. I do not condone every instance of gathering evidence by surreptitiously recording conversations. It seems to me, however, that in cases such as this, rather than being inherently unreliable, evidence gathered in this manner tends to be highly reliable because the speaker feels free to speak without any fear of recrimination.
Moreover, the fact that Farrell was emotionally ill at the time he made the incriminating statements does not mean that every word he spoke was untrue. To the contrary, Farrell’s statements to the effect that Gray was discharged because Hatfield wanted a man in that position were corroborated by other evidence in the record. In fact, the record is permeated by evidence of discriminatory statements and actions of the athletic department staff. Further, Gray presented expert testimony which confirmed that Farrell did not suffer from near total memory loss as suggested by the district court. The fact that there was corroborating evidence should have given the district court pause before it decided to totally disregard Farrell’s statements.
Much is made by appellees of their contention that Gray did not have the respect of the football players and University faculty. Not one player who testified, however, indicated that he had no respect for Gray. On the contrary, the players testified that they did respect Gray. The district court chose not to believe this testimony. What motive the players would have for fabricating their testimony is beyond me. Further, appellees admitted that no one, not even the coaches, commanded the respect of all of the football players. Tr. at 149-51. The alleged lack of respect for Gray is not the only reason given by appel-lees for Gray’s discharge. Depending upon when and in what context appellees were asked to give their reasons for Gray’s discharge, at least four different reasons were given as the reason for her discharge. The fact that appellees changed their story several times indicates that they were concocting after-the-fact justifications, i.e., pretextual reasons, for their discriminatory action. Cf. Hopkins, 109 S.Ct. at 1791 (in mixed motive case, employer may not meet its burden by offering a legitimate reason for its decision “if that reason did not motivate it at the time of the decision”).
Here, we have a situation where Gray, a woman, designed an academic counseling program for college athletes. She implemented the program with relatively few problems, all of which were of the type that one would expect to occur in a new program that was designed to work against the unfortunate inclinations of many young athletes to pay little attention to the academic aspects of attending college. According to the testimony presented in the district court, the problems that did occur were not attributed to incompetence or neglect on the part of Gray. In fact, Coach Hatfield’s philosophy was that his football “players were largely responsible for their own actions and that they would be responsible for getting to class on time and to perform the functions necessary to stay in school and stay eligible.” Gray I, 658 F.Supp. at 713.
*1406Gray, initially described as “pushy” by the Dean of the College of Education, Dr. Fred Vescolani, a term with unfavorable stereotypical connotations and generally used in reference to females and rarely in reference to males, was replaced by a man. The reason: appellees felt they needed a “stronger personality,” a characteristic that, in the view of appellees at least, seems to apply only to males. The substantive distinction between “pushy” and “strong personality” otherwise escapes me. See Hopkins, 109 S.Ct. at 1791 (“stereotyped remarks can certainly be evidence that gender played a part” in adverse employment decision).
The man who replaced Gray, Jerry Welch, was paid a higher salary than Gray, was compensated for “extra duties” that had been performed by Gray for no additional pay, was given more support staff than Gray, and received more benefits in the form of out-of-town conference and game attendance than Gray. Welch was hired in violation of the University affirmative action plan and just happened to be an old (male) teammate of the (male) football coach. The advertisement placed by the athletic department seeking a replacement for Gray was obviously a mere formality. Welch had been pre-selected by Hatfield before the advertisement had even been run. See Maj. Op. at 1397. The University also violated its affirmative action plan by not providing Gray with written evaluations of her performance before she was summarily dismissed. Tr. at 36. The feedback Gray did receive was not negative. When Ken Hatfield replaced Lou Holtz as head football coach, Gray was told by Coach Hatfield “to keep handling things as she had in the past.” Gray I, 658 F.Supp. at 712-13. See Craik v. Minnesota State Univ. Bd., 731 F.2d 465, 472-73 (8th Cir.1984) (failure to implement affirmative action plan relevant to question of discriminatory intent) (citations omitted).
Further evidence of appellees’ discriminatory practices is the fact that Patricia Haynes, the woman who replaced Coach Larry Dixon as the NCAA record-keeper for the athletic department, was paid $9500 per year less than Coach Dixon had been paid for performing the same function. When viewed in isolation, Coach Broyles’ explanation of the salary difference may appear to be legitimate. See Gray I, 658 F.Supp. at 716. When viewed in the context of appellees’ practices in regard to Gray, the salary difference sheds light on their attitude that functions performed by women are less valuable than those same functions when performed by men. Farrell, for example, initially believed that the position created by Gray should be filled by a man. Id. at 711. Coach Broyles initially refused to provide Gray with a secretary saying, “she’s a woman, she can do her own typing,” Tr. 4-6, 4-7, 4-21, whereas Welch, a man, was given ample clerical and secretarial help as a matter of course. See Hopkins, 109 S.Ct. at 1791 (stereotypical remarks are evidence of gender discrimination).
Contrary to the majority opinion, I find that the discrepancy in salary and benefits paid to Gray and Welch is not adequately explained by supposed increased responsibilities assumed by Welch as opposed to those performed by Gray. The advertisement run by the athletic department for Gray’s replacement listed job responsibilities that the record clearly establishes were performed by Gray. Id. 658 F.Supp. at 717. The majority asserts that an additional responsibility assumed by Welch was interpretation' of NCAA rules; however, Coach Hatfield testified “that it was Adella Gray’s job to interpret the [NCAA] rules and to make certain that they were complied with.” Id.
Despite the fact that Gray was terminated for alleged incompetence, she was asked to stay on and “train the new man.” (Emphasis added.) Brief for appellant at 21. The “new man” apparently had difficulty catching on to the requirements of his new position (this despite the fact that he had similar experience in a prior job) and several times approached Gray and asked for her advice and assistance. Id. at 25.
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, I am left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court erred in finding that the motivation for discharging Gray was not gender-based. Further, I am *1407convinced that the central problem in this case is that appellees have a gut feeling that football is exclusively a man’s world where the good old boy ethic is perfectly acceptable and even desirable. This is just the type of insidious attitude that Title VII was enacted to eliminate. We should not play a part in condoning or perpetuating such attitudes. I would reverse the district court and remand with directions to enter judgment for Gray and determine and award appropriate relief to Gray.