41 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1847,
James H. HENDERSON, Jr., Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MEXICO and Mark Pentz, City Manager of Mexico,
Missouri and Harold Strait, Superintendent, Refuse
Department, City of Mexico, Missouri, Appellees.
No. 85-1716.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 18, 1986.
Decided Aug. 13, 1986.
David C. Howard, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Louis J. Leonatti, Mexico, Mo., for appellees.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
James H. Henderson, Jr. appeals the decision of the United States Magistrate1 rejecting his claim that he was demoted in his employment with the City of Mexico, Missouri because of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Aсt of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2 (1982). Henderson argues on appeal that the magistrate erred in not explicitly addressing the ultimate question of discrimination even though he found that the demotion was for a legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reason. Henderson also argues that the magistrate's finding that the non-discriminatory reason for his demotion was not a pretext for discrimination is clearly erroneous. We affirm the decision of the magistrate.
Henderson, a black male, has worked full-time for the City of Mexico, Missouri since July 1952. He served as Superintendent of the Refuse Department for fifteen and a half years before he was demoted to a heavy equipment operator by City Manager Mark Pentz in May 1982. Henderson received only one formal, written evaluation by the City Manager during his tenure as Superintendent of Refuse, in 1973. He was rated "outstanding" in every categоry except record-keeping. Further, Henderson has received merit pay increases each succeeding year; in fact, he received an annual merit increase one week before his demotion. Pentz, a white male, orally informed Henderson that he was being demoted because of an inability to maintain the municipal sanitary landfill in compliance with state requirements and poor management of the Refuse Department. Henderson was replaced as Superintendent by a white male, Harold Strait, who had minimal experience in refuse disposal and landfill operations.
The City introduced evidence that approximately one month before Henderson's demotion, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) inspected the City's landfill and noted a number of serious deficiencies. The DNR reinspected the lаndfill two weeks later and found the deficiencies corrected. Pentz and the City Engineer inspected the landfill, without warning, three consecutive days the week before Henderson was demoted, at least one-half hour after the landfill should have been closed to the public and daily ground cover, required by DNR regulations, begun to be applied. Each day Pentz and the City Engineer found the landfill open and deserted, without propеr ground cover, and in violation of DNR regulations in a number of other respects.
Henderson introduced evidence tending to show that he properly maintained the municipal sanitary landfill. He testified that the unsatisfactory DNR evaluation was due to circumstances beyond his control, such as a shortage of adequate ground cover and a temporary breakdown of equipment, and he emphasized that the landfill was in compliance when reinspected two weeks later. He also testified that during the summer months, he closed the landfill later than normal, so that many of the deficiencies Pentz and the City Engineer discovered during their inspeсtions were corrected before he left the landfill each day.
The City also introduced evidence of Henderson's poor management of the Department. Pentz testified that, under Henderson, the Department operated with more employees than allocated positions, and the resulting payroll and overtime authorized by Henderson contributed to the Department's operating deficit. After Strait's appointment the number of employees in the Department and the payroll were reduced substantially without detriment to refuse collection or disposal. The City introduced evidence that Henderson failed to prepare forms and reports as requested by Pentz, and that he failed to control the Departments's high rate of turnover and absenteeism.
Henderson argued that he properly completed all paрerwork, and that Pentz never informed him of management problems in the Department, as he did with Henderson's successor. Henderson conceded, however, that he was unable to deal with the high rate of absenteeism and turnover in the Department.
Finally, the City introduced evidence that Henderson had violated City policy on at least two occasions by using City equipment in his private trash-hauling business, and on at least two other occasions by using City vehicles for other personal business.
At the time of his demotion, Henderson was the only black City department head. However, the City introduced evidence that Pentz, who had been City Manager for apprоximately one year at the time he demoted Henderson, had hired or promoted minorities to supervisory positions, and had appointed minorities to City commissions and oversight boards. In fact, since Pentz has beеn City Manager, thirteen percent of employees hired by the City have been minorities, twice the minority population of the surrounding county. The City also introduced evidence that Pentz had disciplined or demoted оther city employees, most of them white males, for poor work performance or violating City policies.
By consent of the parties, this case was tried before a United States Magistrate. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) (1982). The magistrate explicitly applied the three-stage analysis for disparate treatment claims set out in Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
I.
Henderson's principal contention on appeal is that the magistrаte failed to apply the proper legal analysis for disparate treatment claims. In United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens,
Henderson argues that although the magistrate explicitly applied each step of the McDonnell Douglas-Burdine analysis--finding that Henderson had made out a prima facie case of discrimination, that the City had presented substantial evidence оf a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the demotion, and that this reason was not pretextual--he did not address the ultimate issue of discrimination. Although Henderson concedes that the plaintiff's burden of proving the dеfendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual "merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that [the plaintiff] has been the victim of intentional discrimination," Aikens,
Henderson also аrgues that the magistrate erred by not considering indirect evidence of discrimination, specifically, evidence that Pentz treated white employees in comparative situations differently from the way he was trеated. Indirect evidence of discrimination, including evidence that minority employees were treated less favorably than comparably situated white employees, is generally admissible to prove the ultimate question of discrimination. Aikens,
II.
Henderson alsо argues that the magistrate's finding that the reasons offered by the appellants for the demotion were not pretextual, is clearly erroneous.2 Our review of the record does not leave us with the "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,
We affirm the judgment of the magistrate.
Notes
The Honorable Robert D. Kingsland, United States Magistrate, Eastern District of Missouri
Henderson contends that the appellants' proffered reasons fоr his demotion should have been subject to particularly close scrutiny because the standards by which he was judged were essentially subjective, and administered by non-minorities. See Bell v. Bolger,