Bartlett v. Secretary of Defense, No. 1:2007cv00127 - Document 44 (S.D. Ohio 2009)
Court Description: ORDER granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations 32 . Case is Dismissed and Terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 5/6/09. (do, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bartlett v. Secretary of Defense Doc. 44 U N I T ED ST AT ES DI ST RI CT COU RT SOU T H ERN DI ST RI CT OF OH I O WEST ERN DI V I SI ON BARRY L. BART LET T , Pla int iff v. C-1 -0 7 -1 2 7 ROBERT M . GAT ES, De fe nda nt T his matter is be fore t he Court upon t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion of t he U nit e d St a t e s M a gist ra t e J udge (doc . no. 3 2 ), pla int iff’s obje c t ions (doc . no. 4 1 ) a nd de fe nda nt ’s re sponse (doc . no. 4 2 ). I n his Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion, w hic h is se t fort h be low , t he M a gist ra t e J udge c onc lude d t ha t no ge nuine issue s of m a t e ria l fa c t e x ist a nd de fe nda nt is e nt it le d t o judgm e nt a s a m a t t e r of la w . T he M a gist ra t e J udge re c om m e nde d t ha t de fe nda nt ’s M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt (doc . no. 2 6 ) be gra nt e d. Pla int iff obje c t s to t he M a gist ra t e J udge 's Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion on t he ground t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge did not 1 Dockets.Justia.com c onst rue a ll fa c t s a nd infe re nc e s in a light m ost fa vora ble t o pla int iff a s t he non-m oving pa rt y. M ore ove r, pla int iff se e k s t o offe r a ddit iona l e vide nc e w hic h he c onc e de s he did not provide t o t he Court in a t im e ly m a nne r due sole ly t o his ow n e rror. T his e vide nc e c onsist s of a Re port of I nve st iga t ion (ROI ) c onduc t e d by t he De pa rt m e nt of De fe nse short ly a ft e r he file d his origina l c om pla int w it h t he a ge nc y; de posit ions of t w o of de fe nda nt ’s w it ne sse s t a k e n on April 2 9 a nd 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 ; a t ra nsc ript from t he Equa l Em ploym e nt Opport unit y Com m ission he a ring he ld on Se pt e m be r 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 ; a n a ffida vit of M yron Gre e nbe rg da t e d Oc t obe r 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 ; a nd De fe nda nt ’s Re sponse t o Pla int iff’s I nt e rroga t orie s a nd Re que st for Produc t ion of Doc um e nt s. Se e doc . nos. 3 6 , 3 7 , 3 8 , 4 0 , 4 1 -2 . 2 3 REPORT AN D RECOM M EN DAT I ON T his c ivil a c t ion is be fore t he Court on De fe nda nt Robe rt M . Ga t e s’ m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt (Doc . 2 6 ) a nd Pla int iff’s re sponsive m e m ora ndum (Doc . 2 7 ). I. BACK GROU N D T his is a n e m ploym e nt disc rim ina t ion c a se a rising unde r t he Age Disc rim ina t ion in Em ploym e nt Ac t , 2 9 U .S.C. § 6 3 3 a (“ADEA”), a nd T it le V I I of t he Civil Right s Ac t of 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e e t se q . (“T it le V I I ”). Pla int iff Ba rry L. Ba rt le t t (m a le , Y OB: 1 9 4 6 ) a lle ge s t ha t he w a s not se le c t e d for t he posit ion of c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t or, GS-1 2 , a t t he De fe nse Cont ra c t M a na ge m e nt Age nc y (“DCM A”) be c a use of his a ge a nd se x . (Doc . 1 , ¶ ¶ 2 , 1 0 -1 8 ). Ac c ordingly, Pla int iff brought t his a c t ion a ga inst Robe rt M . Ga t e s, Se c re t a ry of t he U .S. De pa rt m e nt of De fe nse (DCM A) for a ge a nd ge nde r disc rim ina t ion. DCM A issue d a va c a nc y a nnounc e m e nt for t he posit ion of c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t or, GS-1 2 , in t he a ge nc y’s DCM A Da yt on Ope ra t ions Group in Cinc inna t i, Ohio. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B; B-1 ). T he qua lific a t ion re quire m e nt s for t he posit ion, w hic h w e re se t fort h in t he a nnounc e m e nt , inc lude d one 4 ye a r of spe c ia lize d e x pe rie nc e at t he GS-1 1 le ve l in c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t ion, c ont ra c t ne got ia t ion, m onit oring c ont ra c t pe rform a nc e , a nd fina l c lose out of c ont ra c t s. ( I d ., Ex . B). A c olle ge de gre e w a s not a qua lific a t ion re quire m e nt for a ny c urre nt De pa rt m e nt of De fe nse (“DOD”) e m ploye e w ho oc c upie d a c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t or posit ion on or be fore Se pt e m be r 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 . ( I d .) Pla int iff a pplie d for t he a dve rt ise d posit ion, w a s found t o be a qua lifie d a pplic a nt , a nd his na m e w a s re fe rre d t o t he se le c t ing offic ia l for c onside ra t ion. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B-2 ). At t he t im e of his a pplic a t ion, Pla int iff ha d be e n e m ploye d by DCM A a s a GS-1 1 c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t or sinc e M a rc h 1 9 8 1 for a pe riod of a pprox im a t e ly 2 4 ye a rs. T he re fore , Pla int iff ha d t he re quisit e (Doc . 1 , ¶ 1 0 ). e x pe rie nc e in c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t ion re quire d for t he ope n posit ion. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B-3 ). Pla int iff a lso ha d a c olle ge de gre e (B.A., H ist ory, U nive rsit y of Cinc inna t i, 1 9 6 8 , GPA: 2 .2 ), c om ple t e d post gra dua t e c ourse w ork in Busine ss Adm inist ra t ion, a nd brie fly a t t e nde d la w sc hool. ( I d .) H ow e ve r, Pla int iff ne ve r re c e ive d a ny pe rform a nc e a w a rds w hile e m ploye d a t DCM A. ( I d ., Ex . A, pp. 9 -1 0 ; Ex . B-3 ). 5 T he se le c t e e , M s. Ange la Luc a s (fe m a le , Y OB: 1 9 6 6 ), a lso a pplie d for t he posit ion, w a s found t o be a qua lifie d a pplic a nt , a nd w a s re fe rre d t o t he se le c t ing offic ia l. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B-2 ). At t he t im e of he r a pplic a t ion, M s. Luc a s w a s e m ploye d by DCM A a t it s offic e a t t he Ge ne ra l Ele c t ric (“GE”) pla nt in Eva nda le , Ohio. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B-4 ). M s. Luc a s w a s a c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t or, GS-1 1 , from M a y 1 9 9 6 t o t he da t e of he r se le c t ion in Se pt e m be r 2 0 0 5 , pe rform ing t he func t ions of c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t ion, c ont ra c t ne got ia t ion, m onit oring c ont ra c t pe rform a nc e a nd c ont ra c t c lose out . ( I d .) T he re fore , M s. Luc a s a lso m e t t he ba sic qua lific a t ion re quire m e nt s for t he posit ion. M s. Luc a s re c e ive d se ve ra l pe rform a nc e a w a rds during he r t e nure a s a GS-1 1 c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t or a nd w a s a lso se le c t e d a s t he Fe de ra l Em ploye e of t he ye a r in 1 9 9 6 a nd 2 0 0 3 . ( I d .) Alt hough M s. Luc a s did not ha ve a c olle ge de gre e , she ha d c om ple t e d 5 5 hours of c olle ge c re dit w it h a m a jor in a c c ount ing a nd a GPA of 3 .1 . ( I d .) 6 T he se le c t ing offic ia l w a s M s. K a t hle e n Le hm a n, Ope ra t ings Group Chie f, DCM A-Da yt on. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B). M s. Le hm a n m a de he r se le c t ion ba se d upon he r re vie w of t he a pplic a nt s’ w rit t e n a pplic a t ion m a t e ria ls a nd he r prior k now le dge of t he a pplic a nt s’ w ork pe rform a nc e . ( I d .) M s. Le hm a n found M s. Luc a s t o be t he be st qua lifie d a pplic a nt for t he posit ion ba se d on he r de m onst ra t e d high le ve l of w rit ing a bilit y a nd c om m unic a t ion sk ills. ( I d .) M s. Le hm a n w a s a lso fa m ilia r w it h M s. Luc a s’ ba c k ground a nd a bilit ie s be c a use she ha d se rve d a s he r se c ond le ve l supe rvisor during t he t im e t ha t t he DCM A offic e a t GE-Eva nda le re port e d t o DCM A-Da yt on. ( I d .) M s. Le hm a n found t ha t M s. Luc a s ha d signific a nt e x pe rie nc e in c ont ra c t ne got ia t ions w hic h w a s a c rit ic a l func t ion of t he posit ion a t issue . ( I d .) M s. Le hm a n w a s a lso im pre sse d by M s. Luc a s’ num e rous pe rform a nc e a w a rds a nd he r se le c t ion a s t he Cinc inna t i Are a Fe de ra l Ex e c ut ive Boa rd DCM A Em ploye e of t he Y e a r in 1 9 9 6 a nd 2 0 0 3 . ( I d .) 7 Pla int iff’s c la im of disc rim ina t ion is la rge ly pre dic a t e d on his c onc lusion t ha t he w a s be t t e r qua lifie d for t he posit ion of c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t or t ha n M s. Luc a s be c a use he ha d m ore ye a rs of e x pe rie nc e a nd a c olle ge de gre e . (Doc . 1 , ¶ ¶ 1 0 , 1 1 ). Pla int iff a lso c la im s t ha t he w a s be t t e r qua lifie d ba se d on his fa m ilia rit y w it h t he c ont ra c t w ork loa d in t he Cinc inna t i offic e a nd t ha t he ha d m ore e x pe rie nc e t ha n M s. Luc a s in w ork ing w it h progre ss pa ym e nt s, c ont ra c t or fina nc ing, a nd c ont ra c t ne got ia t ions. ( I d ., ¶ 1 2 ). Addit iona lly, Pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t t he re is dire c t e vide nc e of a ge disc rim ina t ion in t he form of a c om m e nt t ha t he a t t ribut e s t o t he se le c t ing offic ia l t o t he e ffe c t t ha t he “ha d a ba d re put a t ion in Da yt on” a nd t ha t “his 3 4 ye a rs of se rvic e w a s e nough.” ( I d ., ¶ 1 5 ; Doc . 2 6 , Ex . A). 8 II. PROCEDU RAL H I ST ORY Pla int iff file d his pro se c om pla int (Doc . 1 ) on Fe brua ry 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , a sse rt ing t he follow ing c la im s: (1 ) a ge disc rim ina t ion in viola t ion of t he Age Disc rim ina t ion in Em ploym e nt Ac t , unde r 2 9 U .S.C § 6 2 3 e t se q . a nd (2 ) ge nde r disc rim ina t ion unde r T it le V I I of T he Civil Right s Ac t of 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S.C. § § 2 0 0 0 e -1 7 . On M a y 5 , 2 0 0 8 , De fe nda nt file d a m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt se e k ing dism issa l of Pla int iff’s c la im s on t he ba sis t ha t Pla int iff is una ble t o support his c la im of disc rim ina t ory a nim us a nd c a nnot e st a blish t ha t t he a ge nc y’s re a sons for it s se le c t ion w e re pre t e x t ua l. (Doc . 2 6 ). On J une 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , Pla int iff re sponde d t o t he m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt (Doc . 2 7 ) a nd, a c c ordingly, t his m a t t e r is ripe for re vie w . III. ST AN DARD OF REV I EW A m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt should be gra nt e d if t he e vide nc e subm it t e d t o t he Court de m onst ra t e s t ha t t he re is no ge nuine issue a s t o a ny m a t e ria l fa c t , a nd t ha t t he m ova nt is e nt it le d t o judgm e nt a s a m a t t e r of la w . Fe d. R. Civ. P. 5 6 (c ). Se e 9 Ce lot e x Corp. v. Ca t re t t , 4 7 7 U .S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 (1 9 8 6 ); Ande rson v. Libe rt y Lobby, I nc . , 4 7 7 U .S. 2 4 2 , 2 4 7 -4 8 (1 9 8 6 ). T he m oving pa rt y ha s t he burde n of show ing t he a bse nc e of ge nuine disput e s ove r fa c t s w hic h, unde r t he subst a nt ive la w gove rning t he issue , m ight a ffe c t t he out c om e of t he a c t ion. Ce lot e x , 4 7 7 U .S. a t 3 2 3 . All fa c t s a nd infe re nc e s m ust be c onst rue d in a light m ost fa vora ble t o t he pa rt y opposing t he m ot ion. M a t sushit a Ele c . I ndus. Co. v. Z e nit h Ra dio Corp., 4 7 5 U .S. 5 7 4 , 5 8 7 (1 9 8 6 ). A pa rt y opposing a m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt “m a y not re st upon t he m e re a lle ga t ions or de nia ls of his ple a ding, but . . . m ust se t fort h spe c ific fa c t s show ing t ha t t he re is a ge nuine issue for t ria l.” Ande rson , 4 7 7 U .S. a t 2 4 8 (1 9 8 6 ). IV. AN ALY SI S A. Dire c t Evide nc e of Disc rim ina t ion Pla int iff c la im s t o ha ve dire c t e vide nc e of a ge disc rim ina t ion in t he form of c om m e nt s m a de by his supe rvisor, M s. Ga il Le w in. (Doc . 1 , ¶ 1 5 ). M ore spe c ific a lly, Pla int iff c la im s t ha t a ft e r a m e e t ing in Da yt on be t w e e n M s. Le w in a nd M s. Le hm a n, M s. Le w in 10 c a lle d Pla int iff int o he r offic e a nd st a t e d t ha t he “ha d a ba d re put a t ion in Da yt on” a nd t ha t he “ha d 3 4 ye a rs, a nd t ha t w a s e nough.” ( I d .) Pla int iff c la im s t ha t t he se c om m e nt s did not origina t e w it h M s. Le w in a nd t ha t t he y a re in fa c t a t t ribut e d t o M s. Le hm a n. ( I d .) H ow e ve r, Pla int iff offe rs no e vide nc e , dire c t or ot he rw ise , t ying t he a lle ge d c om m e nt s t o t he se le c t ing offic ia l or t o t he se le c t ion a c t ion a t issue . Re ga rdle ss, e ve n if t he c om m e nt s w e re m a de by M s. Le hm a n, t he y do not rise t o t he le ve l t ha t is re quire d t o c onst it ut e dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion. Com m e nt s by a de c ision m a k e r m a y, in ra re c irc um st a nc e s, c onst it ut e dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion, but t he c om m e nt s m ust be “c le a r, pe rt ine nt , a nd dire c t ly re la t e d t o t he de c isionm a k ing pe rsonne l or proc e sse s.” K la us v. H ilb, Roga l & H a m ilt on Co. of Ohio , 4 3 7 F.Supp.2 d 7 0 6 , 7 2 5 (S.D. Ohio 2 0 0 6 ). Com m e nt s t ha t a re c onside re d dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion “w ill be sim ila r t o a n e m ploye r t e lling it s e m ploye e , ‘I fire d you be c a use you a re fe m a le .’” J oha nne s v. M onda y Cm t y. Corr. I nst ., 4 3 4 F. Supp.2 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 4 -5 1 5 (S.D. Ohio 2 0 0 6 ). T he fa c t t ha t a re m a rk is 11 ina ppropria t e or sugge st s disc rim ina t ory a nim us doe s not ne c e ssa rily indic a t e t ha t it is dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion. Dunnom v. Be nne t t , 2 9 0 F.Supp.2 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 8 (S.D. Ohio 2 0 0 3 ) (c onc luding t ha t a supe rvisor’s st a t e m e nt t o t he e ffe c t t ha t “w om e n did not be long” w a s not dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion). T he c om m e nt t ha t Pla int iff “ha s a ba d re put a t ion in Da yt on” doe s not re la t e t o a ge or se x disc rim ina t ion nor doe s it sugge st a disc rim ina t ory a nim us. Addit iona lly, t he c om m e nt t ha t Pla int iff “ha s 3 4 ye a rs, a nd t ha t is e nough” is not c le a rly re la t e d t o t he prom ot ion a t issue a nd is not t he t ype of bla t a nt a nd une quivoc a l c om m e nt t ha t is dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion. B. Age a nd Ge nde r Disc rim ina t ion Pursua nt t o t he ADEA a nd T it le V I I T he Age Disc rim ina t ion in Em ploym e nt Ac t (“ADEA”) prohibit s disc rim ina t ion in e m ploym e nt on t he ba sis of a ge . Se e 2 9 U .S.C. § 6 2 3 (a ). Fe de ra l la w a lso prohibit s disc rim ina t ion in e m ploym e nt on t he ba sis of ge nde r. Se e 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e , e t se q . (“T it le V I I ”). A pla int iff e st a blishe s a prim a fa c ie c a se pursua nt t o t he ADEA a nd T it le V I I by 12 de m onst ra t ing t ha t : (1 ) he w a s a m e m be r of t he prot e c t e d c la ss; (2 ) he w a s qua lifie d for t he job he he ld; (3 ) he suffe re d a n a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion; a nd (4 ) t ha t he w a s t re a t e d diffe re nt ly t ha n sim ila rly sit ua t e d younge r a nd/or fe m a le e m ploye e s. O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Ca t e re rs Corp. , 5 1 7 U .S. 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 (1 9 9 6 ) (ADEA); M c Donne ll Dougla s Corp. v. Gre e n , 4 1 1 U .S. 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 (1 9 7 3 ) (ADEA); Erc e govic h v. Goodye a r T ire & Rubbe r Co. , 1 5 4 F.3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 0 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) (ADEA); Polic a st ro v. N ort hw e st Airline s, I nc . , 2 9 7 F.3 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 8 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) (c it ing M it c he ll v. T ole do H osp. , 9 6 4 F.2 d 5 7 7 , 5 8 2 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 2 )) (T it le V I I ). De fe nda nt a c k now le dge s, a nd t he Court a gre e s, t ha t Pla int iff ha s e st a blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of a ge a nd ge nde r disc rim ina t ion. H ow e ve r, onc e a pla int iff ha s e st a blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se , t he burde n of produc t ion shift s t o t he de fe nda nt t o "a rt ic ula t e som e le git im a t e , nondisc rim ina t ory re a son" for t he e m ploye e 's a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion. Loga n v. De nny's, I nc . , 2 5 9 F.3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 1 ) (quot ing M c Donne ll Dougla s Corp. , 4 1 1 U .S. a t 8 0 2 ). I f t he de fe nda nt c a rrie s t his burde n, t he pla int iff m ust t he n "prove t ha t t he proffe re d re a son w a s a c t ua lly a pre t e x t for invidious disc rim ina t ion." (I d .) 13 I n t his c a se , for t he re a sons se t fort h in de t a il be low , De fe nda nt ha s offe re d suffic ie nt e vide nc e t o sa t isfy it s burde n of proof t ha t it se le c t e d M s. Luc a s be c a use she w a s found by t he se le c t ing offic ia l t o be t he be st qua lifie d a pplic a nt for t he posit ion in que st ion. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B). I n he r sw orn a ffida vit , M s. Le hm a n st a t e s t ha t she m a de he r se le c t ion ba se d on he r re vie w of Pla int iff’s w rit t e n a pplic a t ion m a t e ria ls a nd he r prior k now le dge of t he w ork pe rform a nc e of se ve ra l of t he a pplic a nt s, inc luding bot h t he a pplic a nt a nd t he se le c t e e . ( I d .) M s. Le hm a n’s se le c t ion w a s a lso m ot iva t e d by M s. Luc a s’ num e rous pe rform a nc e a w a rds, he r se le c t ion a s t he DCM A Em ploye e of t he Y e a r, a nd he r a ppoint m e nt a s t he M e c ha niza t ion of Cont ra c t Adm inist ra t ion Se rvic e s (“M OCAS”) t rust e d a ge nt a t DCM A GE-Eva nda le . ( I d .) Ac c ording t o M s. Le hm a n, t he se fa c t s c onfirm e d t ha t M s. Luc a s w a s a n out st a nding e m ploye e . ( I d .) Addit iona lly, M s. Le hm a n st a t e d t ha t she re c e ive d a dvic e from Pla int iff’s first -le ve l supe rvisor t ha t Pla int iff w a s not a highly m ot iva t e d e m ploye e a nd t ha t he w a s t he t ype of e m ploye e w ho only did e nough w ork t o ge t by. ( I d .) T his a dvic e , t oge t he r w it h t he fa c t t ha t Pla int iff ha d 14 ne ve r re c e ive d a pe rform a nc e a w a rd in ove r 2 0 ye a rs of fe de ra l se rvic e , indic a t e d t ha t Pla int iff w a s not a n out st a nding pe rform e r a nd w a s t he re fore not t he be st qua lifie d a pplic a nt for t he posit ion. ( I d .) M ore ove r, M s. Le hm a n de nie d t ha t she c onside re d Pla int iff’s a ge or se x in he r se le c t ion. ( I d .) Pla int iff c la im s t ha t De fe nda nt ’s proffe re d re a sons for se le c t ing M s. Luc a s w e re a c t ua lly pre t e x t for invidious disc rim ina t ion. T o e st a blish pre t e x t , a pla int iff m ust de m onst ra t e "t ha t t he proffe re d re a son (1 ) ha s no ba sis in fa c t , (2 ) did not a c t ua lly m ot iva t e t he de fe nda nt 's c ha lle nge d c onduc t , or (3 ) w a s insuffic ie nt t o w a rra nt t he c ha lle nge d c onduc t ." De w s v. A.B. Dic k Co., 2 3 1 F.3 d 1 0 1 6 , 1 0 2 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 0 ). T he first t ype of proof re quire s t ha t Pla int iff show t ha t t he ba sis for t he se le c t ion ne ve r ha ppe ne d or is fa c t ua lly fa lse . (I d .) T he se c ond t ype of proof c onsist s of a de m onst ra t ion t ha t “a n ille ga l m ot iva t ion w a s m ore lik e ly t ha n [t he re a sons] offe re d by t he de fe nda nt .” (I d .) T he t hird t ype of proof c onsist s of e vide nc e t ha t ot he r younge r a nd/or fe m a le e m ploye e s or e m ploye e s w ho w e re ot he rw ise sim ila rly sit ua t e d t o 15 Pla int iff w e re not se le c t e d. ( I d .) Pla int iff fa ils t o pre se nt e vide nc e in orde r t o e st a blish pre t e x t . 1. Pa t t e rn of Disc rim ina t ion I n a n a t t e m pt t o prove t ha t De fe nda nt ’s proffe re d nondisc rim ina t ory re a son for hiring M s. Luc a s w a s pre t e x t for disc rim ina t ion, Pla int iff c la im s t ha t De fe nda nt ’s se le c t ion w a s ba se d on a n ille ga l m ot iva t ion, a lle ging disc rim ina t ion re la t ing t o se ve ra l pa st se le c t ions m a de by t he De fe nda nt a ge nc y. I n pa t t e rn c la im s of disc rim ina t ion unde r T it le V I I , t he pla int iff m ust de m onst ra t e t ha t disc rim ina t ion w a s "st a nda rd ope ra t ing proc e dure ." Luja n v. Fra nk lin Count y Bd. of Educ ., 7 6 6 F.2 d 9 1 7 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 8 5 ) (quot ing I nt 'l Bhd. of T e a m st e rs v. U nit e d St a t e s, 4 3 1 U .S. 3 2 4 , 3 3 6 (1 9 7 7 )). M ore ove r, t he Six t h Circ uit ha s he ld "t ha t t he pa t t e rn-or-pra c t ic e m e t hod of proving disc rim ina t ion is not a va ila ble t o individua l pla int iffs." Ba c on v. H onda of Am . M fg., I nc ., 3 7 0 F.3 d 5 6 5 , 5 7 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ). T he Ba c on c ourt re a sone d "t ha t a pa t t e rn-or-pra c t ic e c la im is foc use d on e st a blishing a polic y of disc rim ina t ion; be c a use it doe s not a ddre ss individua l hiring de c isions, it is ina ppropria t e a s a ve hic le for proving 16 disc rim ina t ion in a n individua l c a se .” I d.; se e a lso , I nt ’l Bhd. of T e a m st e rs , 4 3 1 U .S. a t 3 5 9 -6 0 (“t he pa t t e rn-or-pra c t ic e m e t hod of proof is lim it e d t o c la ss a c t ions or suit s by t he gove rnm e nt ”) . N ot w it hst a nding t he c ont rolling c a se la w in t his m a t t e r, t he unde rsigne d w ill a ddre ss Pla int iff’s a lle ga t ions re ga rding a pa t t e rn of disc rim ina t ion. Pla int iff c la im s t ha t Ala n La m e ie r a pplie d t o be a gra de GS-1 2 Qua lit y Assura nc e Spe c ia list in t he t im e fra m e from 2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 2 . (Doc . 2 7 ). H ow e ve r, M s. Le hm a n se le c t e d a fe m a le w ho ha d not w ork e d in t he qua lit y a ssura nc e fie ld for a num be r of ye a rs. ( I d .) Pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t M r. La m e ie r w a s m ore qua lifie d t ha n t he fe m a le w ho w a s se le c t e d. ( I d .) Pla int iff doe s not , how e ve r, offe r a n a ffida vit support ing t he se a lle ga t ions or e vide nc e re ga rding t he spe c ific qua lific a t ions of t he a lle ge d fe m a le se le c t e e or M r. La m e ie r. ( I d .) T he re fore , it is im possible for t he Court t o a sse ss w he t he r t he se le c t ion m a y ha ve be e n disc rim ina t ory. Addit iona lly, Pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t t he se le c t ion of Lynn Rue hl t o a c ont ra c t ing offic e r posit ion in 2 0 0 4 is e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion. (Doc . 2 7 ). Pla int iff opine s t ha t he w a s pre ve nt e d from a pplying for t he posit ion be c a use t he posit ion w a s a dve rt ise d a s be ing loc a t e d a t Wright -Pa t t e rson 17 AFB ne a r Da yt on, Ohio, a nd he w a s not int e re st e d in a posit ion a t t ha t loc a t ion. (Doc . 1 , ¶ 8 ). Pla int iff furt he r a lle ge s t ha t M s. Le hm a n viola t e d t he a ge nc y’s M e rit Prom ot ion Re gula t ion w he n she t he n a ssigne d t he se le c t e e t o a posit ion in Cinc inna t i ra t he r t ha n a t t he a dve rt ise d loc a t ion. ( I d ., ¶ ¶ 8 , 9 ). Pla int iff a dm it s, how e ve r, t ha t he did not a pply for t his pa rt ic ula r posit ion a nd t ha t he m a de no inquirie s re ga rding t he posit ion w he n it w a s a dve rt ise d. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . A, pp. 2 0 -2 2 ). Eve n if Pla int iff’s fa c t ua l a lle ga t ions a re t rue , Pla int iff ha s not offe re d a ny e vide nc e , by a ffida vit or ot he rw ise , to show t ha t M s. Le hm a n int e nt iona lly m isre pre se nt e d t he loc a t ion of t he posit ion in orde r t o pre ve nt Pla int iff from a pplying in t he first inst a nc e or t ha t M s. Le hm a n w a s m ot iva t e d by a disc rim ina t ory a nim us a ga inst Pla int iff w he n she se le c t e d M s. Rue hl a nd a ssigne d he r t o w ork in Cinc inna t i. Ac c ordingly, ba se d on c ont rolling c a se la w a nd Pla int iff’s fa ilure t o offe r suffic ie nt proof, t he unde rsigne d finds t ha t Pla int iff’s a lle ga t ions do not e st a blish pre t e x t for disc rim ina t ion. 18 2. St a t ist ic s Pla int iff a lso a lle ge s t ha t he ha s st a t ist ic a l e vide nc e t o support De fe nda nt ’s disc rim ina t ory a nim us. (Doc . 1 , ¶ 4 ). Spe c ific a lly, he a lle ge s t ha t w he re e m ploye e s ove r t he a ge of 5 5 m a de up 3 6 pe rc e nt of t he Ope ra t ions Group supe rvise d by M s. Le hm a n, only 6 pe rc e nt of t he e m ploye e s prom ot e d w e re ove r t he a ge of 5 5 . (Doc . 1 , ¶ 1 4 ). H ow e ve r, Pla int iff’s m inim a l st a t ist ic a l inform a t ion is insuffic ie nt t o e st a blish pre t e x t or prove disc rim ina t ion. “Appropria t e st a t ist ic a l da t a show ing a n e m ploye r's pa t t e rn of c onduc t t ow a rd a prot e c t e d c la ss a s a group c a n, if unre but t e d, c re a t e a n infe re nc e t ha t a de fe nda nt disc rim ina t e d a ga inst individua l m e m be rs of t he c la ss." Ba rne s v. Ge nCorp, I nc ., 8 9 6 F.2 d 1 4 5 7 , 1 4 6 6 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 0 ). T o c re a t e suc h a n infe re nc e , how e ve r, "t he st a t ist ic s m ust show a signific a nt dispa rit y a nd e lim ina t e t he m ost c om m on nondisc rim ina t ory e x pla na t ions for t he dispa rit y." Be nde r v. H e c ht 's De p't St ore s, 4 5 5 F.3 d 6 1 2 , 6 2 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) (quot ing Ba rne s, 8 9 6 F.2 d a t 1 4 6 6 ). Pla int iff’s st a t ist ic a l a na lysis doe s lit t le t o support his posit ion be c a use : (1 ) it fa ils t o e lim ina t e t he m ost c om m on nondisc rim ina t ory e x pla na t ions for t he 19 dispa rit y, suc h a s diffe re nc e s in sk ills or e duc a t ion, a nd (2 ) it fa ils t o a na lyze st a t ist ic s of t he e nt ire suspe c t c la ss, w hic h inc lude s e m ploye e s ove r t he a ge of 4 0 , not 5 5 . Ac c ordingly, t he da t a doe s not support a n infe re nc e t ha t De fe nda nt disc rim ina t e s a ga inst pe rsons ove r t he a ge of 40. First , Pla int iff’s foc us on e m ploye e s ove r t he a ge of 5 5 is inc onsist e nt w it h t he ADEA, w hic h prohibit s disc rim ina t ion a ga inst pe rsons ove r t he a ge of 4 0 . I n a ddit ion, Pla int iff doe s not pre se nt a ny e vide nc e t o e st a blish t he unde rlying va lidit y of his st a t ist ic s. For e x a m ple , t he a na lysis doe s not c onside r t ha t e m ploye e s ove r a ge 4 0 , or for t ha t m a t t e r, ove r a ge 5 5 , m a y a lre a dy oc c upy t he highe r gra de d posit ions a nd m a y not ha ve a pplie d for prom ot ions in num be rs proport iona t e t o t he ir re pre se nt a t ion in t he w ork forc e . Furt he rm ore , t he re c ord e vide nc e e st a blishe s t ha t M s. Le hm a n ha s a posit ive re c ord for se le c t ing m a le s ove r a ge 4 0 , a nd e ve n ove r a ge 5 0 . (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B-5 ). I n 2 0 0 5 , t he re w e re a t ot a l of e ight prom ot ion a c t ions in t he DCM A Da yt on Ope ra t ions Group supe rvise d by M s. Le hm a n. ( I d .) For a ll of t he se a c t ions, M s. Le hm a n w a s e it he r t he se le c t ing offic ia l or 20 t he a ge nc y a pproving offic ia l ove r t he se le c t ing offic ia l. ( I d .) Of t he se e ight prom ot ions, five of t he se le c t e e s w e re m a le . ( I d .) Furt he rm ore , se ve n of t he e ight se le c t e e s w e re ove r a ge 4 0 , a nd four of t he se individua ls w e re ove r a ge 5 0 . ( I d .) M ore ove r, T it le V I I doe s not re quire pe rfe c t ba la nc e in a w ork forc e . I nt ’l Bt hd of T e a m st e rs , 4 3 1 U .S. a t 3 3 9 , n.2 0 . Eve n st a t ist ic s w hic h show a prolonge d a nd m a rk e d im ba la nc e m a y not be c ont rolling in a n individua l disc rim ina t ion c a se w he re a le git im a t e re a son for t he e m ploye r’s a c t ion is pre se nt . M c Donne ll Dougla s Corp. , 4 1 1 U .S. a t 8 0 5 n.1 9 . Ac c ordingly, Pla int iff fa ils t o offe r suffic ie nt st a t ist ic a l e vide nc e t o e st a blish pre t e x t for disc rim ina t ion. 3. Qua lific a t ions An e m ploye e c a n a lso e st a blish pre t e x t by pre se nt ing e vide nc e t ha t his or he r qua lific a t ions w e re pla inly supe rior t o t hose of t he se le c t e e . T ole do v. J a c k son , 2 0 7 Fe d. Appx . 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 n. 4 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 6 ). Pla int iff fa ile d t o pre se nt e vide nc e t ha t his qua lific a t ions w e re so fa r a nd pla inly supe rior t o t hose of t he se le c t e e t ha t t he dispa rit y in qua lific a t ions a lone c ould w a rra nt a finding of pre t e x t . Alt hough Pla int iff ha d 2 4 ye a rs of 21 e x pe rie nc e a s a GS-1 1 c ont ra c t a dm inist ra t or c om pa re d t o t he se le c t e e ’s nine ye a rs of e x pe rie nc e , Pla int iff offe re d no e vide nc e t o show t ha t t his diffe re nc e in t im e on t he job m a k e s a qua lit a t ive diffe re nc e in a n e m ploye e ’s pe rform a nc e . T he qua lific a t ion re quire m e nt in t he va c a nc y a nnounc e m e nt re quire d only one ye a r of e x pe rie nc e a t t he GS-1 1 le ve l for prom ot ion t o t he GS-1 2 posit ion. (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B-1 ). T he sa m e is t rue w it h re spe c t t o Pla int iff’s c la im t ha t he w a s m ore fa m ilia r w it h t he c ont ra c t ors a nd t he c ont ra c t w ork loa d in t he Cinc inna t i offic e . Fa m ilia rit y w it h t he Cinc inna t i offic e w ork loa d w a s not a qua lific a t ion re quire m e nt for t he posit ion, a nd t he re is no e vide nc e t ha t suc h fa m ilia rit y m a k e s t he Pla int iff a pla inly supe rior c a ndida t e . ( I d .) Sim ila rly, Pla int iff’s c olle ge de gre e a nd post -gra dua t e c ourse s in busine ss a nd la w do not m a k e him t he pla inly supe rior c a ndida t e . A c olle ge de gre e w a s not a qua lific a t ion re quire m e nt for a pplic a nt s w ho oc c upie d a GS-1 1 posit ion on or be fore Se pt e m be r 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 . (Doc . 2 6 , Ex . B-1 ). T he se le c t e e oc c upie d a GS-1 1 posit ion sinc e M a y 1 9 9 6 a nd t hus sa t isfie d t his re quire m e nt . ( I d ., Ex . B-2 ). Furt he rm ore , Pla int iff offe re d 22 no e vide nc e a pa rt from his opinion t ha t a c olle ge de gre e m a de him t he pla inly supe rior c a ndida t e . M ore ove r, t he issue is not w he t he r De fe nda nt m a de t he be st possible de c ision in se le c t ing M s. Luc a s, but w he t he r it m a de a disc rim ina t ory de c ision. St e in v. N a t iona l Cit y Ba nk , 9 4 2 F.2 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 5 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 1 ) (“I t is not t he func t ion of c ourt s t o judge t he w isdom of pa rt ic ula r busine ss polic ie s.”). “Assum ing t ha t Pla int iff w a s m ore qua lifie d t ha n a ny ot he r a pplic a nt , t he ADEA doe s not prohibit De fe nda nt from hiring a pplic a nt s not a s qua lifie d a s Pla int iff, t he ADEA prohibit s re je c t ing a pplic a nt s be t w e e n a ge s 4 0 a nd 7 0 on t he ba sis of a ge .” H a ll v. M a rin M a rie t t a Ene rgy Sys., I nc . , 8 5 6 F.Supp. 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 5 (W.D. K y. 1 9 9 4 ), a ff’d 5 4 F.3 d 7 7 6 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 5 ). T he burde n re m a ins w it h t he Pla int iff t o prove t ha t his a ge w a s a de t e rm ining fa c t or in t he se le c t ion a c t ion. Phe lps v. T a le Se c ., I nc . , 9 8 6 F.2 d 1 0 2 0 , 1 0 2 3 (6 t h Cir.), c e rt . de nie d , 1 1 4 S. Ct . 1 7 5 (1 9 9 3 ). T he sa m e is t rue for Pla int iff’s a lle ga t ions of ge nde r disc rim ina t ion. I t is w e ll e st a blishe d t ha t T it le V I I lia bilit y c a nnot re st sole ly on t he de t e rm ina t ion t ha t a n e m ploye r m isjudge d t he re la t ive qua lific a t ions of 23 a dm it t e dly qua lifie d c a ndida t e s. Fisc hba c h v. Dist ric t of Colum bia De p’t of Corr. , 8 6 F.3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 3 (D.C.Cir. 1 9 9 6 ). T it le V I I doe s not dim inish m a na ge m e nt ’s pre roga t ive of c hoosing a m ong qua lifie d c a ndida t e s t o fill a va c a nt posit ion. Wre nn v. Gould , 8 0 8 F.2 d 4 9 3 , 5 0 2 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 8 7 ). Ac c ordingly, t he unde rsigne d finds t ha t Pla int iff fa ile d t o pre se nt e vide nc e t ha t his qua lific a t ions w e re pla inly supe rior t o M s. Luc a s a nd t he re fore fa ile d t o e st a blish pre t e x t for disc rim ina t ion a s re quire d in orde r t o survive De fe nda nt ’s m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt . ORDER I nit ia lly, t he Court finds t ha t w hile it ha s disc re t ion t o re c e ive a nd c onside r furt he r e vide nc e in c onduc t ing it s de novo re vie w , 1 it w ould be ina ppropria t e unde r t he c irc um st a nc e s of t his c a se t o c onside r t he e vide nc e pla int iff ha s a dde d t o t he re c ord follow ing issua nc e of t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion. I t a ppe a rs t ha t a ll of t he e vide nc e pla int iff se e k s t o ha ve t he Court c onside r w a s a va ila ble be fore he file d his re sponse t o de fe nda nt ’s m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt on J une 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , 1 Se e Fe d. R. Civ. P. 7 2 (b); Lyons v. Com m ’r of Soc . Se c ., 3 5 1 F. Supp.2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 2 (E.D. M ic h. 2 0 0 4 ) (c it ing 1 2 Wright , Fe de ra l Pra c t ic e § 3 0 7 0 .2 ); J one s v. Bla na s, 3 9 3 F.3 d 9 1 8 , 9 3 5 (9 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) (c it ing Brow n v. Roe , 2 7 9 F.3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 4 (9 t h Cir. 2 0 0 2 )). 24 a nd w e ll be fore t he M a gist ra t e J udge issue d his Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion on Oc t obe r 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 . 2 M ore ove r, pla int iff c onc e de s t ha t he did not a dd t he e vide nc e t o t he re c ord e a rlie r due sole ly t o his ow n e rror. I t w ould not be fa ir t o de fe nda nt , nor w ould it se rve t he int e re st of just ic e , t o a llow pla int iff t o w a it unt il a ft e r t he M a gist ra t e J udge ha d issue d his Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion t o a dd e vide nc e t ha t w a s a va ila ble but t ha t pla int iff ne gle c t e d, w it hout just ific a t ion, t o pla c e int o t he re c ord. T his is pa rt ic ula rly t rue sinc e it is a ppa re nt from pla int iff’s opposing m e m ora ndum t ha t a lt hough he is proc e e ding pro se , pla int iff unde rst ood t he t ype of e vide nc e he ne e de d t o subm it in orde r t o re spond t o de fe nda nt ’s m ot ion for sum m a ry judgm e nt . Ac c ordingly, t he Court e x e rc ise s it s disc re t ion t o lim it it s re vie w of t he re c ord t o t he e vide nc e t ha t w a s be fore t he M a gist ra t e J udge a nd t o de c line t o c onside r t he e vide nc e pla int iff se e k s t o a dd t o t he re c ord. U pon a de novo re vie w of t he re c ord, e spe c ia lly in light of pla int iff’s obje c t ions, t he Court finds t ha t pla int iff’s obje c t ions ha ve e it he r be e n 2 Only t he a ffida vit of M yron Gre e nbe rg is da t e d a ft e r t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion, a nd pla int iff doe s not a lle ge t ha t he w a s una ble t o obt a in t he a ffida vit be fore he file d his opposing m e m ora ndum a nd be fore t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion w a s issue d. 25 a de qua t e ly a ddre sse d a nd prope rly dispose d of by t he M a gist ra t e J udge or pre se nt no pa rt ic ula rize d a rgum e nt s t ha t w a rra nt spe c ific re sponse s by t his Court . T he Court finds t ha t t he M a gist ra t e J udge ha s a c c ura t e ly se t fort h t he c ont rolling princ iple s of la w a nd prope rly a pplie d t he m t o t he pa rt ic ula r fa c t s of t his c a se a nd a gre e s w it h t he M a gist ra t e J udge . Ba se d on t he e vide nc e of re c ord, t he Court finds t ha t t he re a re no ge nuine issue s of m a t e ria l fa c t for t ria l a nd de fe nda nt is e nt it le d t o judgm e nt a s a m a t t e r of la w . Ac c ordingly, t he Court he re by ADOPT S t he Re port a nd Re c om m e nda t ion of t he U nit e d St a t e s M a gist ra t e J udge (doc . no. 3 2 ). De fe nda nt ’s M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt (doc . no. 2 6 ) is GRAN T ED. T his c a se is DI SM I SSED AN D T ERM I N AT ED on t he doc k e t of t his Court . I T I S SO ORDERED. S/ H e rm a n J . We be r H e rm a n J . We be r, Se nior J udge U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
