Harding v. Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC
541 F. App'x 9
2d Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiff Calvin Harding, an African-American employee, sued Wachovia/Wells Fargo and supervisors alleging race discrimination in promotion under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the NYC Human Rights Law after being passed over for front-desk promotions.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants; Harding appealed to the Second Circuit.
- Harding argued defendants’ stated nondiscriminatory reasons (hiring/promoting candidates with particular skill sets) were pretextual based on alleged inconsistencies, deviation from hiring practices, and lack of contemporaneous documentation.
- Defendants explained hires/promotions were based on specific skills (e.g., securitization experience, compliance/legal background, accounting) and better sales attributes for front-office roles.
- The record showed candidates (Charette, Barta, Petrou, Murphy) had skills or sales strengths defendants sought; depositions supported defendants’ explanations and did not contain direct contradictory contemporaneous evidence of pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hiring/promotional decisions were pretext for racial discrimination | Harding: inconsistencies in hiring rationales, departures from normal hiring practices, and absence of contemporaneous justification show pretext | Defendants: hires were for specific, legitimate skill sets; testimony and record support nondiscriminatory reasons | Held for defendants — no genuine dispute that proffered reasons were pretextual; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether inconsistent deposition statements support an inference of pretext | Harding: prior statements about wanting middle‑office backgrounds contradict current emphasis on specific skill sets | Defendants: prior statements, when read in context, describe candidates’ relevant skills and are consistent with current rationale | Court: statements were consistent; no direct contradiction to support pretext |
| Whether deviation from normal hiring procedures establishes pretext | Harding: departures from "normal" practices where minority involved | Defendants: hiring was informal and selections based on skills; no clear, established procedure shown | Court: plaintiff failed to identify specific ingrained procedures or deviations; no evidence of meaningful procedural departure |
| Whether lack of contemporaneous documentation implies manufactured reasons | Harding: absence of contemporaneous records undermines defendants’ explanations | Defendants: absence alone insufficient absent other contradictory evidence or superior plaintiff qualifications | Court: lack of contemporaneous evidence alone does not show pretext here; unlike precedents where plaintiff was significantly better qualified or employer required documentation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Williams v. R.H. Donnelley, Corp., 368 F.3d 123 (applying McDonnell Douglas in § 1981 context)
- Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129 (inconsistent explanations can show pretext)
- EEOC v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116 (shifting explanations can support inference of discrimination)
- Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29 (lack of contemporaneous evidence can support pretext when contradicted by objective proof)
- Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, 243 F.3d 93 (plaintiff must show he was so superior that no reasonable employer would prefer others)
- Dister v. Cont’l Grp., Inc., 859 F.2d 1108 (employer’s reason must not be so lacking in merit as to be manufactured)
- Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120 (plaintiff must show discriminatory animus was motivating factor)