Tabor v. Hilti, Inc.
703 F.3d 1206
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hilti used the Global Develop and Coach Process (GDCP) to track promotion readiness via P and M ratings and career goals, but records were incomplete and managers often ignored GDCP ratings.
- Ms. Tabor and Ms. Gray, both inside sales reps, sought Account Manager (outside sales) promotions and claimed gender discrimination under Title VII.
- Hilti allegedly used discretionary GDCP-based promotions, including “tap on the shoulder” promotions to men and limited field training for women.
- Ms. Teel made gendered comments during Tabor’s interview, suggesting women lacked tool knowledge and questioning travel for a married woman, allegedly affecting promotion decisions.
- Hilti denied certification for a class and moved to summary judgment; district court granted partial judgments and denied class certification; issues remained for individual claims and a remand on Gray’s disparate impact claim.
- Plaintiffs appeal Tabor’s failure-to-promote, retaliation, and disparate impact claims; Gray appeals failure-to-promote and disparate impact; the panel remands Gray’s disparate impact claim and affirms other rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether direct or circumstantial evidence supports Tabor’s failure-to-promote | Tabor有 direct evidence via Teel’s discriminatory comments linking to promotion decision | Hilti argues McDonnell Douglas framework applies | Tabor survives under direct evidence or pretext theory |
| Whether Tabor’s retaliation claim was properly dismissed | Opposition to discrimination caused adverse action | No causal link; actions not adverse or timely tied to complaint | affirmed dismissal of retaliation claim |
| Whether Tabor has a prima facie disparate-impact claim | GDCP discretion caused gender disparity in promotions | Discretionary, non-uniform policy cannot be disparate impact basis (per Wal-Mart) | reversible error; remanded for further proceedings on disparate impact under proper standard |
| Whether Gray has an individual disparate-impact claim | Gray suffered disparate impact from policy | Summary judgment appropriate; remains remand for analysis | remanded for district court to address Gray’s disparate impact claim |
| Whether class certification was appropriate under Rule 23 | Common questions of law/fact exist | Discretionary promotion decisions require individualized inquiries | district court’s denial of class certification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006) (disparate impact requires isolating challenged practice and controlling for discretion)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (S. Ct. 2011) (class action requires common policy and common mode of discretion; not fit for nationwide class)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1988) (disparate-impact analysis applies to subjective criteria; discretion can be basis for individual claim)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (establishes Burdine three-part burden-shifting framework)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (clarifies direct evidence versus circumstantial proof under Title VII)
- Ramsey v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 907 F.2d 1004 (10th Cir. 1990) (direct evidence standard indicated when discrimination is explicit by decisionmaker)