Court Opinion

ID: 2964844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:02.818402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.449502
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2062

                                    MANUEL GALVAO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                THE GILLETTE COMPANY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                      Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                         _____________________

                                 ____________________

            Mark F. Itzkowitz for appellant.
            _________________
            Richard  P. Ward  with whom  Bonnie B.  Edwards was  on  brief for
            ________________             __________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 12, 1997
                                 ____________________

               COFFIN,  Senior Circuit Judge.   Appellant Manuel  Galvao, a
                        ____________________

          black  Cape Verdean male, contends that  the district court erred

          in   dismissing  his   federal  and   state  discrimination   and

          retaliation  claims  against his  former  employer,  the Gillette

          Company ("Gillette").1  He also maintains that the district court

          erred in  denying his  former counsel's motion  to withdraw.   We

          affirm.  

                                        FACTS
                                        _____

               We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the party

          opposing summary judgment.   See Fennell v.  First Steps Designs,
                                       ___ _______     ____________________

          Ltd., 83 F.3d 526, 534 (1st Cir. 1996).  The incidents underlying
          ____

          this case began in approximately 1989, when Galvao was working in

          the Boston Research  and Development Division (BRAD)  of Gillette

          as a Grade 7 technician.  He sought a promotion or upgrade of his

          job  classification,   which  was  denied.2    Instead,  Gillette

          supervisors  presented  Galvao  with a  Career  Development  plan

          designed to qualify  him for promotion to a Grade 8 position.  On

          Galvao's protest, an  audit of his position was  performed by the

          Gillette Human Resources Compensation Department, which concluded

          that  his  position  was  properly  graded.    Galvao sought  and
                              
          ____________________

               1    Galvao specifically claims that it was Gillette as a
          corporate entity, and not any specific individuals there, who
          discriminated against him.

               2    There seems to be some confusion as to whether the
          change sought was a promotion or a regrading of Galvao's existing
          job.  Indeed, Galvao himself testified in his deposition that he
          was unclear as to the distinction between the two.  The issue is
          irrelevant to our analysis, however, since Galvao is unable to
          show that there were others similarly situated for either
          circumstance.  

                                         -2-

          received a  review of  the audit by  Gillette's Open  Door Review

          Panel, which also upheld the denial of the upgrade.3  

              In July 1992, Galvao filed a complaint with the Massachusetts

          Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD"), alleging  that he had

          been   denied  a  promotion  and  given  a  negative  performance

          evaluation  due to  his  race,  color and  national  origin.   He

          maintains  that  after  his  filing,  his  supervisors  distanced

          themselves from him,  and subjected him to  greater criticism and

          demands.   He  was assigned  to a new  supervisor, Dr.  Hoang Mai

          Trankiem,  in February  1993.4    Although  Trankiem  and  Galvao

          initially had a positive relationship  as a result of an in-house

          project they had previously worked on together, relations between

          them rapidly deteriorated.  Trankiem instituted a system of daily

          worksheets  and productivity reports on Galvao, and, according to

          him, exerted tremendous pressure on  him, with the result that he

          felt  increasingly stressed.  Despite repeated requests by Galvao

          to  both  Trankiem and  her  supervisor,  Dr. Stan  Wreford,  for

          intervention  vis  a   vis  his   working  responsibilities   and

                              
          ____________________

               3     The Panel was composed of Doris Ferrer Roach, an
          attorney in Gillette's General Counsel's Office and a Hispanic
          female; Timothy W. Horan, Director of Human Resources-
          Manufacturing, a white male; and Robert A. Williams, III, Vice
          President, Corporate Director, Urban Affairs, a black male.  

               4    Dr. Trankiem is a Vietnamese female.  Trankiem
          testified in her deposition that she requested she supervise
          Galvao in an effort to improve his productivity, which had become
          a source of concern under a previous supervisor.

                                         -3-

          Trankiem's supervision of him, no help was forthcoming.5  Rather,

          Galvao was eventually provided with a Final Written Warning,6 and

          then terminated on November 8, 1993.  He subsequently filed suit,

          bringing both federal  and state  discrimination and  retaliation

          claims.     The  district  court  granted  summary  judgment  for

          Gillette, and this appeal followed.

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

               We review the district court's  grant of summary judgment de
                                                                         __

          novo.   See Mesnick v.  General Electric Co.,  950 F.2d 816,  822
          ____    ___ _______     ____________________

          (1st Cir.  1992).  In so  doing, we have thoroughly  reviewed the

          record  and the  briefs, and  find ourselves  in accord  with the

          district  court's conclusions.   Mindful  that  where a  district

          court  has produced  a  comprehensive, well-reasoned  opinion, we

          should  not needlessly  expound  at length,  we  discuss each  of

          Galvao's claims  briefly.  See  Lawton v. State Mut.  Life Assur.
                                     ___  ______    _______________________

          Co. of America, 101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996).  
          ______________

          1.Title VII Discrimination.
            _________________________

          Under the well-established McDonnell Douglas  framework for Title
                                     _________________

          VII cases,  see McDonnell  Douglas Corp. v.  Green, 411  U.S. 792
                      ___ ________________________     _____

          (1973); see also  Smith v. F.W. Morse  & Co., Inc., 76  F.3d 413,
                  ___ ____  _____    _______________________

          420 (1st Cir.  1996), a plaintiff seeking to prove discrimination

                              
          ____________________

               5    In one memo to Dr. Wreford, Galvao described Dr.
          Trankiem's management style as "Vietnamese" and said he was being
          subjected to psychological torture and treated like a prisoner or
          a slave.  

               6    As part of his Final Written Warning, Galvao was
          upgraded to Grade 8 by Dr. Trankiem in an effort to remove a
          perceived barrier to his productivity.  

                                         -4-

          without  direct evidence  of bias  must first  establish a  prima

          facie  case of discrimination.  See  Lattimore v. Polaroid Corp.,
                                          ___  _________    ______________

          99 F.3d 456  (1st Cir. 1996).7   This is accomplished  by showing

          that the  employee is  a member  of a  protected  class and  that

          similarly situated  employees who were  not members of  the class

          were treated more favorably.  See id.  If such a showing is made,
                                        ___ __

          the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate

          non-discriminatory reason for its actions.  See id.  Once this is
                                                      ___ __

          accomplished,  the employee  may then attempt  to prove  that the

          proffered reason is a pretext.  See id.8  
                                          ___ __

               The district court found that Galvao had failed to show that

          there were  similarly situated employees  who could be used  as a

          basis of  comparison.   We see  no flaw  in its  reasoning.   The

          employees identified by Galvao either  were not in the same grade

          as him, or they worked in different areas.  

               We recently  cautioned that courts must  exercise particular

          care when evaluating a plaintiff's claim that an employer applied
                              
          ____________________

               7    Cases decided under the ADEA (Age Discrimination in
          Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.    621-634) are applicable in the Title
          VII context, see Fennell, 83 F.3d at 535 n. 9, and we therefore
                       ___ _______
          cite to cases of both types for purposes of the McDonnell-Douglas
                                                          _________________
          analysis.  

               8      The district court concluded this was a "non-
          competitive promotion" case (rather than what it termed a "garden
          variety" failure to promote case), and therefore adopted a
          modification promulgated in a district court case in Tennessee,
          Young v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 868 F.Supp. 937, 944-45
          _____    ______________________________
          (W.D. Tenn. 1994).  As both the "garden variety" and "non-
          competitive promotion" analyses require a plaintiff to address
          the key issue here -- i.e. whether the plaintiff is treated
          differently from others similarly situated -- we do not for the
          present distinguish between non-competitive promotion and other
          failure to promote cases.  

                                         -5-

          its  standards differentially  (i.e.,  distinguished between  the
                                          ____

          plaintiff and those similarly situated).  See E.E.O.C.  v. Amego,
                                                    ___ ________     ______

          Inc., 110 F.3d 135, 145  (1st Cir. 1997)(citing Banerjee v. Board
          ____                                            ________    _____

          of Trustees, 648 F.2d 61,  63 (1st Cir. 1981))(in academic tenure
          ___________

          context, plaintiffs who were  denied tenure must show that  their

          qualifications  are  at least  comparable to  those of  "a middle

          group of  tenure candidates as  to whom both a  decision granting

          tenure  and a  decision denying  tenure could  be justified  as a

          reasonable exercise  of discretion by the  tenure-decision making

          body").  A  plaintiff must be able, at a  minimum, to demonstrate

          that  there are  at least  some  basically comparable  employees.

          Galvao was unable to do this.

               Although the district court's finding that Galvao had failed

          to make out  a prima facie  case made it unnecessary  to continue

          the McDonnell Douglas  analysis, the  district court  went on  to
              _________________

          find that Gillette's proffered reason for not upgrading Galvao --

          that he lacked  the credentials and characteristics of  a Grade 8

          technician -- was  not a pretext.  The  district court thoroughly

          addressed the evidence on this issue, and we  need not repeat it.

          We agree  that, on this  record, a jury  could not conclude  that

          Gillette's  reasons  were  pretextual,  and  Galvao s  Title  VII

          discrimination claim therefore fails.  

          2.   Title VII Retaliation.
               ______________________

               Galvao  also contends  that  the  district  court  erred  in

          dismissing his separate  claim that  Gillette retaliated  against

          him  for  filing  the  MCAD  complaint.    He  asserts  that  his

                                         -6-

          supervisor subjected him to undue supervision and assessment, and

          ultimately  terminated  him  in response  to  his  administrative

          claim. 

               The  McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis is also used
                    _________________

          in  retaliation claims  where there  is no  direct evidence  of a

          defendant's retaliatory animus.  See Fennell, 83 F.3d at 535.   A
                                           ___ _______

          plaintiff seeking to show a prima facie case of retaliation under

          Title  VII must show  1) he or  she engaged  in protected conduct

          under  Title VII and that the alleged retaliator was aware of it,

          2)  an adverse  employment  action, and  3)  a causal  connection

          between the first two elements.  See id.; see also Petitti v. New
                                           ___ __   ___ ____ _______    ___

          England Tel. & Tel. Co., 909 F.2d  28, 33 (1st Cir. 1990).   Once
          _______________________

          this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the defendant to

          articulate  a   legitimate  non-discriminatory  reason   for  its

          employment decision.  See Fennell, 853 F.3d at 535.
                                ___ _______

               Even given  a generous  reading, Galvao's  retaliation claim

          falters.   While he  can establish that  he engaged  in protected

          conduct -- the filing  of the MCAD complaint -- he  has failed to

          show that Gillette personnel knew  about this at the time of  the

          allegedly adverse employment actions, or that there was  a causal

          relationship  between his  filing  his  MCAD  complaint  and  the

          challenged conduct.  As the district court  explained, the record

          shows that  the adverse employment actions of which he complains,

          including  his  termination,  were the  result  of  his own  poor

          performance and insubordination.  

                                         -7-

          3.   Motion of Counsel to Withdraw.
               ______________________________

               Galvao  also contends  that  the  district  court  erred  in

          denying his  previous counsel's  motion to  withdraw.  He  argues

          that the court's ruling compelled him to continue with counsel in

          whom  he  had lost  faith, and  whose commitment  to his  case he

          doubted, and that  his case was thereby prejudiced.   Under Local

          Rule 83.5.2(c), because  successor counsel had not  been obtained

          by Galvao, it was within  the court's discretion whether to grant

          his counsel's  motion to  withdraw.9   In  the circumstances,  we

          cannot say  that the  court's refusal to  do so  was an  abuse of

          discretion.   See Andrews v.  Bechtel Power Corp., 780  F.2d 124,
                        ___ _______     ___________________

          135 (1st Cir. 1985).   Title VII litigation is complex  and a pro

          se   litigant  embarks  on   this  path  with   some  significant

          disadvantage.   The court's conclusion that Galvao was better off

          with counsel, even  if they were not  exactly seeing eye  to eye,

          was not an unreasonable one.   Moreover, the court indicated that

          it would be willing to  reconsider the issue later.  Furthermore,
                              
          ____________________

               9    Rule 83.5.2(c) states:

              An attorney may withdraw from a case by
              serving notice of his withdrawal on his
              client and all other parties and filing the
              notice, provided that (1) such notice is
              preceded or accompanied by notice of the
              appearance of other counsel; (2) there are no
              motions pending before the court; (3) no
              trial date has been set; and (4) no hearings
              or conferences are scheduled, and no reports,
              oral or written, are due.  Unless these
              conditions are met, an attorney (including
              one whose services have been terminated by
              his client) may withdraw from a case only by
              leave of court.

                                         -8-

          although we  realize that  a serious  difference existed  between

          Galvao  and his  counsel, it  appears  from the  record that  the

          district court made every effort  to permit Galvao to present his

          case as he wished.10 

               Additionally,  Galvao's  counsel  was  bound  by an  ethical

          obligation  to  prosecute his  case fully  and effectively.   See
                                                                        ___

          Hammond  v. T.J.  Little, 809  F.Supp.  156, 159  (D.Mass. 1992).
          _______     ____________

          Galvao maintains that his counsel failed to do so because she did

          not  present  various  documents obtained  during  the  course of

          discovery to the court which  he alleges would have bolstered his

          case.    We  decline  Galvao's  invitation  to  second guess  his

          counsel's  strategic decisions about  the evidence to  present in

          support of a claim.  

          4.   State law claims.
               _________________

               Finally,  Galvao  appeals  the dismissal  of  his  state law

          discrimination  and retaliation  claims  by  the district  court,

          arguing   that  under   the  more   relaxed   standard  used   in

          Massachusetts ("pretext  only"), a jury could have  found, on the

          basis of the evidence that  he presented, that Gillette's reasons

          for  failing to upgrade him and  terminating him were pretextual.

          In support  of  this  contention, Galvao  cites  Blare  v.  Husky
                                                           _____      _____

          Injection Molding Systems Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437 (1995).  We
          ______________________________________

                              
          ____________________

               10   In a pretrial hearing, the district court specifically
          informed Galvao that he had instructed his counsel that in any
          situation where a difference arose between Galvao and counsel as
          to the presentation of arguments, Galvao's counsel should present
          it both in the form that Galvao wished and in the form that
          counsel's legal judgment suggested.

                                         -9-

          read Blare as  holding that Massachusetts, while  adhering to the
               _____

          three stage McDonnell Douglas analysis, requires that a plaintiff
                      _________________

          show only  that it was more likely  than not that the articulated

          reason  for the  employer's action  was  pretextual, rather  than

          providing  more  direct  proof of  discriminatory  motive  by the

          employer, as the  federal standard requires.  See  id. at 444-45;
                                                        ___  __

          see also Lattimore,  99 F.3d  at 465.   As discussed, infra  (and
          ___ ____ _________                                    _____

          putting to one side his failure to show that there were similarly

          situated  employees), Galvao  failed  to  adduce any  significant

          evidence to support his claim that Gillette's articulated reasons

          for its  actions were pretextual.   Accordingly, his  state claim

          founders on this lack of evidence of pretext, just as his federal

          one did.  

          Affirmed.
          _________

                                    -10-