Court Opinion

ID: 9477423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:23:18.319448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:52.290650
License: Public Domain

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The majority and the district court held that Gunter failed to prove that Coca-Cola’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote him were a pretext for discrimination. The evidence shows that this finding on the issue of discriminatory intent is clearly erroneous.
It is undisputed that Walker was responsible for the promotion decision and that no evidence indicates that Walker was racially biased. Walker, however, based his decision not to promote Gunter primarily on input from Moody who was found to be racially biased. Because no formal procedure was available to guide Walker in fill*485ing the vacancy left by Moody, Walker relied heavily on conversations with Moody and on personnel files which contained evaluations and reprimands prepared by Moody. Walker testified, “I checked [Gun-ter’s] personnel files and his records, but I did not consider him as — after checking his personnel records in the file, I did not consider him as a replacement for Moody.” This reliance on files prepared primarily by Moody indicates that Walker’s ultimate decision was severely tainted by Moody’s con-cededly discriminatory nature. At his deposition, Walker stated that “[Moody] is supposed to have someone to succeed him if he retires.” After Moody recommended one man who refused the position, Moody recommended Whatley who ultimately replaced Moody. The pervasive influence of Moody, who was definitively found to be racially biased, was primary in Walker’s promotion decision. The post-hoc reasons which Walker offers are therefore a pretext for the failure to promote Gunter. In fact, Gunter had substantial seniority over Whatley and had substituted as superintendent on previous occasions. Although the majority found that Gunter lacked the necessary financial skills to perform as superintendent, the evidence fails to show specifically how Whatley possessed superi- or financial skills. Thus, the only conclusion from the evidence is that Walker’s decision to promote Whatley over Gunter was not based on Whatley’s superior financial skills, but on Moody’s discriminatory attitude which contaminated Gunter’s employment file.
This case should be reversed on the ground that Gunter proved that Coca Cola’s reasons for failing to promote him were pretextual.