Charles ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GADSDEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant. Gadsden County, Florida, Defendant

ascertaining the facts.” EX,” care court took equal to substantially it “to make Id. at the modification that evidence there was no by IBM. or warranted certified be would in this case is whether The issue showing that no However, was there complied County Fulton with defendant $493,480. worth be would certification governing competitive bid- Georgia statute MLC failed concluded court Then the requires county to That statute ding. re- for a number new serial provide a to responsible contract to lowest award a violated and this machine placement implicit that the district it is bidder. While these rea- Based on bidding requirements. that IBM was the lowest concluded court plain- court concluded district sons the bidder, explanation is no responsible there not recover. tiff could there is that can be when by the court how $493,480. It in the bids of a difference explain the to court failed district of the that the evidence defendant may be were not the two machines why reasons the new EX was have shown that would price differential when equivalent com- when worth the differential indeed dis- $493,480. did the Nor approximately E. modified but used pared ato non-availability explain how the trict court bid by MLC its identified machine of the adequately ex- court The district did BPart of the bidding process. affected I would judgment. for its plain the basis irregulari- explains certain opinion majority completion remand for reverse The bids bidding process. ties county could offer evidence trial so that open bid 1985. MLC’s May opened to it contract to reasons awarded expiration thirty days. Before find the court could which time IBM at that it time, MLC county informed judg- a reasoned facts and make credible IBMto because award the bid intended to ment. county did equipment. new it wanted any contentions agree to consider machines were might make that

MLC forward, MLC From thence

equivalent. county to demonstrate

made efforts satisfy the would 3083E

that the modified county. savings to at a

county’s needs had it equipment July, sold the In MLC ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Charles it provided bid in its bid. Its identified identical for an one 3083E substitute could v. August an EX. On one or HOSPITAL, MEMORIAL GADSDEN IBM but the contract county awarded Defendant-Appellant. MLC the latter’s discuss with continued of the two equivalency about Florida, contentions County, Defendant. Gadsden 1st, learned MLC November machines. On No. 86-3826. the contract been IBM had awarded Appeals, equipment would delivery of States Court and that United Circuit. 5th. Eleventh made November be Sporting City, Inc. Wilson 13, 1988. Golf Jan. Cir.1977) when Goods, F.2d 426 pro- need to discussing the district court’s predi- proper court a appellate

vide an our reviewing opinion, its court

cate for trial findings of the court “the

stated that give us a sufficiently detailed

must be understanding analytical

clear findings were by which ultimate

cess the trial to assure us

reached and

Benjamin Culp, Jr., B. David Charles Whitlock, Phillips, Atlanta, Ga., Fisher & for defendant-appellant. Tallahassee, Danni Vogt, Fla., Steven L. Seliger, Fla., Quincy, plaintiff-appellee. tember, 1976, Roberts returned to GMH’s VANCE, Circuit HILL Before department participant as a maintenance SPELLMAN,* District Judges, and Comprehensive Employment county’s Judge. (CETA) Training program. Act Rob- Judge: SPELLMAN, District program equiv- under this erts’ duties regular the trial those of a maintenance case in alent to VII This is Title alia, the Defend- also alternated on a inter found, employee. that Roberts court (GMH)dis- Allen, Hospital super- ant, weekly Memorial basis Gerald Gadsden Plaintiff, Charles being in “on against during period, this visor time criminated in of race (Roberts), the basis respond on maintenance after-hours Roberts call” to opportunities Moreover, super- denying him fair “served problems. November, trial 1978, July, eight and to ten other CETA workers visor of inci- two these found capacity, further In this assigned court to GMH. [Rob- of practice pattern areas, sup- out of picked up arose assigned dents work erts] a “con- constituted time, perform- kept evaluated plies, and civil of Roberts’ by GMH tinuing violation” Findings Fact & Conclusions ance.” award- court Accordingly, the trial rights. Law, (R-58-2). the differ- on damages based ed Roberts 1977, Corry appointed August, GMH In those salary his between ence Wilhoit, male, as mainte- to serve a white GMH supervisors maintenance per wage supervisor $4.42 nance at interest, prejudgment place, in his moted Al- resigned. Allen after Gerald hour attorneys fees. costs, and vacancy, known of the though Roberts had review, find that we Upon careful posi- supervisory applied for the had that GMH conclusion Court’s however, January on Subsequently, tion. against Roberts wrongfully discriminated a full-time 2, 1978, Roberts as GMH hired evi by substantial supported was in 1981 Although en- this worker. maintenance conclusion The court's dence. program, leaving CETA tailed Roberts’ sufficient so incidents were 1978 and substantially same. his remained duties continuing to constitute ly related 1978, resigned, recom- July, Wilhoit however, erroneous. violation, replacement. The his mending Roberts as Swint, v. U.S. Pullman-Standard See time, Ed Car- administrator GMH (1982); 1781, L.Ed.2d 273, 102 S.Ct. to Roberts without ter, position offered Works, Birmingham Saw v. Carmichael that, increase so wage a concomitant Cir.1984). (11th There 1126, 1129 F.2d earning $4.42 been Wilhoit had whereas time-barred fore, claim was Roberts’ hour, $3.50 offered Roberts per damages for entitled he was not The trial same work. for the per hour 1981. Accord occurring prior to injuries explanation no credible court found part and REVERSE AFFIRM in ingly, we Roberts disparity. wage this record part. “promotion” because rejected per- temporarily wage, but discriminatory I. Facts supervi- maintenance duties of formed findings made extensive trial court David hired GMH month until one sor for Gadsden find we instructive: fact which aat male, position for the Beach, a white De- Florida, operates the owns County, (R-58-3). per hour. wage $5.50 (GMH). hospital GMH fendant-Appellant No- until position this remained in Beach people and is than fifteen employs more hospital the new when vember 2000e. section U.S.C. within Arnold, his res- administrator, forced Ken GMH 1966 began his career at Roberts day same him on the replaced ignation and de- in the maintenance he worked where male who Harrison, a white Michael Sep- with 1972. In resigning in partment until * designation. ting by Eugene Spellman, U.S. District P. Honorable Florida, sit- Judge Southern District for the had been working as a scrub tech- Products 1142 n. 7

nician three weeks at that time. Ar- Cir.1983). nold considered no one but Harrison for Once plaintiff has prima established a position. (R-58-3). Arnold filled the case, facie thereby raising an inference position of supervisor maintenance in an that he subject was the of intentional race informal and (R-58-3, secretive manner. discriminated, the burden shifts to defend- 8). ant to rebut this inference presenting satisfying legitimate, After all administrative and non-discriminatory reasons for procedural prerequisites, its failure plaintiff sued select the position for wrongfully failing sought. promote Texas Department him to this on the Community basis of Burdine, race. 450 U.S. Affairs 67 L.Ed.2d (1981).

II. If Discussion the employer fails to satisfy burden, this the inference of intentional discrimination Roberts' claim was essentially that GMH stands unrebutted plaintiff and the is enti- against discriminated him in denying him tled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. fair opportunities 1977, 1978, in 1981, If, and however, and that these the employer incidents demon- successfully strate the legitimate existence of articulates a continuing a viola- non-discriminatory tion reason action, such that the for plaintiff earlier the two claims the were must time-barred, not rather, by next establish preponderance a preserved but were of the under evidence scope the a “continuing discriminatory viola- intent moti- tion” vated doctrine. the employer’s The District Court action. found McDonnell Douglas, 804, 411 racial U.S. at 93 1825; was not S.Ct. involved at Perryman, in the 1977 incident. 698 F.2d As A plaintiff Roberts did appeal may carry this finding, this burden we need indirectly, focus either by our dis- showing only upon cussion proffered 1978 and defendant’s 1981 ex- inci- planation dents and is pretextual, whether incidents, these or directly, by taken together, showing that a discriminatory constituted a “continuing reason more viola- likely tion.” motivated the defendant’s action. Burdine, 256, 450 atU.S. 1095; S.Ct. at Perryman,

A. The 1981 Incident 698 F.2d By at 1142. success- fully meeting burden, this plaintiff cre- The record supports the District Court’s ates a presumption that the em- adverse finding that Roberts prima established a ployment product action was the of discrim- facie case of racial discrimination in the inatory intent. The employer may rebut incident, which GMH failed to rebut. this presumption only by showing that the Douglas McDonnell Green, Corp. v. adverse action would have occurred even in Supreme Court set forth complicated the absence of discriminatory intent. burden-shifting analysis for proving, in- Healthy Mount City School District evidence, direct a Title VII claim of racially Board or Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. disparate 792, treatment. 411 U.S. 274, 287, 568, 576, S.Ct. 50 L.Ed.2d 471 1817, 36 (1973); L.Ed.2d 668 see also Texas (1977); Perryman, 698 F.2d at 1142. Department Community v. Affairs Burdine, U.S. S.Ct. 1089, 67 Although the burgeoning progeny (1981). L.Ed.2d To prima establish a of McDonnell Douglas often treats the case, facie plaintiff a required prove shifting burden test as an yard inflexible that “he or she is a member of protected stick, Supreme Court has cautioned minority, qualified applied that it intended the test to function more as promotion, rejected despite these an evidentiary guide to determine the ulti qualifications, and that other employees question mate in a racial discrimination equal qualifications lesser who case under Title VII: whether the employ were not protected members minori- er against discriminated on claimant ty promoted.” Perryman v. Johnson basis race. United States Postal degree in horticulture Aikens, son had achieved v. Governors Board Service ex- cumulative not overshadow Roberts’ 75 did 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. U.S. of “hands- more than a decade perience example, when (1983). For L.Ed.2d experience at infor GMH. on” maintenance out of promote arises failure Dis process, as mal, selection secretive back record far demonstrates case at in the found occurred trict Court was, in in fact and GMH’s Roberts inference may raise an bar, plaintiff highly qualified for the perception, treatment intentional, racially-disparate noted, “That As the District Court motion. technically applied proving that without offered to position was [Roberts obtain, promotion. for, failed to qualifica- of his is the best evidence 1978] Works, Saw Birmingham Carmichael supervisor.” More- tion to be maintenance Cir.1984). Ac 1126, 1133 738 F.2d su- over, Wilhoit, previous maintenance technically retrace cordingly, rather than opportuni- had extensive pervisor, who had through steps District Court’s job, recom- on the ty Roberts to observe test, will we Douglas-Burdine McDonnell upon replacement as his mended Roberts analysis to deter flexible engage in a more expe- years of resigning. had had Roberts dis supports the record mine whether occasion, and, on department rience success finding trict court’s Moreover, supervisor. had acted as ra of intentional an inference fully raised out tried take Roberts GMH discrimination, failed cial him make program and CETA Line Coast v. Seaboard Hill rebut. See testimony employee. The permanent GMH Cir. F.2d Railroad Court’s conclusion supports District the It is Carmichael, 1985); (R4-10), him depended on hospital that the finding was such opinion that this Court’s the certainly qualified for he was and that erroneous. year Between that and job in 1978. hospital job his beginning Soon after experience. years of more had had three Quincy, relocating to and administrator supports the this evidence It is clear that Arnold, GMH, con- Florida, site of the highly quali- was Roberts conclusion that facili- hospital the status cerned with the time Arnold position at fied for the compe- investigating Beach’s ties, began em- white lesser-qualified it to a awarded (Defend- supervisor. as maintenance tence ployee. At about 3-Composite). # Exhibit ant’s reasonably con- Moreover, the trial court with time, began to socialize same the mismanage- gross previous the cluded that staff, one hospital members certain department maintenance of ment Harrison, hus- was Michael of whom to con- failure to Arnold’s no defense vided (R4-79). On the nurse of a GMH band Had promotion. for sider Beach’s terminated Arnold day that same to Roberts in promotion a fair offered position to he offered employment, condition perhaps the posted notice never Arnold had Harrison. satisfactory. Cer- have been would gave no one an and position “open” ac- hold Roberts could not tainly, GMH apply. to opportunity gratuitous- failing perform to for countable find- the trial court’s supports The record was for which he job ly, prior to Roberts, although a member ing that in 1978. Roberts passed over wrongfully than race, qualified more was protected than job anyone’s other do duty had no awarded position, Arnold Harrison notion supports The evidence his own. Harrison, male. a white promotion job well. his own he did qualifications trial, defending At qual- de factor Harrison’s appears that It em- choice, placed Arnold undue hiring his attending same consisted ification had com- Harrison the fact that phasis on becoming a Arnold barbecues not- college. As Court pleted hospital adminis- buddy” “drinking ed, no evidence the record] [in “There Testimo- (Arnold’s Harrison’s manage- trator. ever Harrison demonstrated 117). Arnold acknowl- R4-79, ny at Harri- Certainly, the fact that rial skills.” edged importance gath- these social demonstrated that it was during lunch- erings in hiring decision. Id. More- break that word of mouth circulated. over, the offers record no evidence that Lunchbreak, however, awas time when possessed any legitimate Harrison manage- most of the black employees’ coworkers, rial supports skills. The record the conclu- white, who were together socialized sion promotion that this decision was noth- the foreman. The record showed that the ing typical more “good than a boy” ol’ plaintiff was made to feel unwelcome at appointment. these gatherings. lunch Id. at 1133 n. 2. say, Needless to plaintiff preferred to Unfortunately Roberts, he was not dine reaped alone never the fruits of guest on the list for these momentous so- grapevine. the white Id. Under those gatherings. cial testified, As Arnold “Mr. facts, held we had a Roberts never entered mind aas can- [his] duty to consider the black employee for the position.” (R4-82). didate for that Arnold position. 1133-34; Id. at Cox, see also never Roberts, considered whether main- F.2d at 1560 (quoting Carmichael, 738 member, possessed tenance staff quali- 1133). F.2d at The employer was not enti- fications necessary serve in a supervi- tled to assume that the employee was not sory capacity. simply He thought “never interested. Id. inquire.” (R4-85). The record demon- occasions, strates that on numerous Rob- facts remarkably Carmichael are erts had such demonstrated skills. He was similar to those of the case judice. sub qualified far more than a mere “handy- process Arnold’s selection was more secre- man.” Certainly, had it occurred to Arnold tive than that of the employer in Carmi- employee to consider the veteran chael. His decision to award position, he would have discovered Roberts’ to Harrison largely a function of their qualifications. after-hours social relationship. Thus, ac- cess to promotion placed even further This Court has noted on numerous occa beyond Roberts’ reach than was the case informal, sions that secretive and subjec Carmichael. hiring tive processes decision tend to facilitate the consideration of im GMH seeks to assert in its defense that permissible criteria, See, such as race. e.g., it is not guilty of disparate treatment be- Cox v. American Pipe Co., Cast Iron 784 cause Arnold never considered Roberts for 1546, (11th F.2d Cir.1986), 1560 cert. de position. the Failing to consider Roberts —nied, U.S. -, 274, 93 L.Ed. itself constituted disparate treatment under (1986); 2d 250 Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line these facts. Our holding in Carmichael (11th Railroad 767 F.2d 775 Cir. allows no other result. This is especially 1985); v. Birmingham Carmichael Saw true inasmuch as had applied for Works, 738 (11th F.2d Cir.1984); 1133 position the Where, in 1978. as in the case Watson v. Service, National Linen judice, sub has reason to F.2d Cir.1982); Rowe v. Gen know employee that an qualified for a eral Corp., Motors 457 F.2d 359 & n. that employee the might desire (5th Cir.1972); see Payne also Tra to be considered for position, the em- Laboratories, Inc., venol 673 F.2d ployer’s failure to consider the employee (5th Cir.1982). promotion for legitimate, is not a nondis- criminatory reason sufficient to rebut an Carmichael, In an employer awarded a of inference intentional disparate treatment promotion to a employee white less successfully raised under the McDonnell seniority than employee good black Douglas test. standing. promotion The process com- pletely informal provided no checks Arnold’s informal necessarily methods against racial bias. The means and intentionally favored those who moved employee which an received notice within i.e., his social people. white circles— promotion opportunity was by Carmichael, word of See 2; 1133 & n. mouth. 738 F.2d at 1132-33. The record Payne, 827; Rowe, 673 F.2d at 457 F.2d at disingenu- methods, The record demonstrates a black Arnold’s light In attempted exculpation. of this ous nature getting this chance little man stood hospital ad- memoranda between Internal pat- promotion “method” This motion. “by no personnel show that ministrative equal a black man failed to afford ently one de- imagination” could stretch of the VII demands. Title treatment One a master electrician. scribe Beach as the District Court’s supports clearly record to subtle detective have resort did not to rebut failed that GMH conclusion shortcomings; Beach’s to discover work criteria impermissible racial inference profound. patently obvious and they were decision-making GMH’s fatally infected qualified Beach was It is clear that never process. of Maintenance Su- the position at all for record, we review Upon a careful pay nearly rate let at a pervisor, alone supporting evidence find substantial any to Roberts. of that offered 160% satis- finding that Roberts District Court’s noted, case, Court the record as the District McDonnell under his burden fied why reason GMH presents legitimate no raising inference test, thereby Douglas for job to Roberts have offered would Arnold discriminatory intent motivated wage. less than Wilhoit’s decision, that GMH’s above, noted Conversely, we have illegit- the inference attempts to rebut substantially supports the District record Moreover, in nature. pretextual imate and qualified finding that Roberts was Court’s treat- disparate racially in the absence that inas- promotion in 1978 and for the job to ment, have offered Arnold would legitimate reason no much as GMH offered District Court Accordingly, the Roberts. wage disparity glaring between awarding relief on Roberts’ correct paid to two and that offered to Roberts claim. work, the same performing men white substantially supports the Dis- the record 1978 Incident B. treatment finding disparate trict Court’s incident. in the context incident, record As to deter District supports the Court’s charge of timely filed a Had Roberts disparate suffered that Roberts mination 180-day subsequent to the persuasive no presented treatment. occurrence of filing period after unconscionable legitimate reason award of incident, Courts wage of hourly $4.42 disparity between year in that beginning period relief for the resigning, prior to Roberts, that Wilhoit earned how- correct. have been would then-administrator, wage GMH’s admittedly $3.50 knew ever, although he Wil Carter, to assume Ed offered against racially discriminated had wage ulti position, $5.50 and the (Rl-12- hoit’s timely charge. him, a did not file re who given Roberts)). to the white male mately 104, of Charles (Deposition 106 position. ceived the and the Therefore, 1978 incident unless sufficiently related so 1981 incident were to record as in the There is no reason violation, Rob- continuing a as to constitute Wilhoit’s why accommodate GMH could stemming from the relief claim for erts’ month, accommo- but could not wage one prior to period 1978 incident and The record indicates date it the next. and the time barred incident were 1981 hospital was practice of the normal relief for granting in Court erred District promotion, incident to a pay a raise in offer period. purported done. The was not sole and this pay glaring jump justification for Continuing Violation The C. that, a “master Beach was offered to doctrine, continuing violation Under electrician,” ultimately save would discrimina- acts of discrete a series of unnecessary making it money “[i]f filing peri- statutory into expen- tion continues contracting for independent to hire considered od, of action then the cause repairs. sive electrical 800 timely filed.” Coleman v. Clark ployer &Oil would proffer need to in defending Refining 1035, (E.D. 568 F.Supp. against the timely-filed claim should be rel- Wis.1983). To revive the otherwise time- evant to his against defense the time- doctrine, barred under however, claim barred claim as well. it must part pattern be of a continuing In determining

practice the existence out of vel timely-filed which inci nexus, non such a dent arose. a court should See United Air not Lines v. Ev rely ans, upon superficial 553, 1885, factual analysis, U.S. 97 S.Ct. but L.Ed.2d rather, (1977). should refer to a variety of factors. Such factors include whether the claims employee When an timely charge files a were in subject matter, related frequency, discriminatory act, he may recover (i.e., and permanence whether the act was previous acts of discrimination which sufficiently permanent in nature so as to would otherwise be time-barred to the ex “trigger an employee’s awareness of and tent that he can meet his burden of proving duty to assert his rights”). or her Berry v. existence substantial nexus be Supervisors Board L.S.U., 715 F.2d tween the acts. See Milton Weinberger, v. — 971, (5th Cir.1983), denied, cert. 1070, 1077 (D.C.Cir.1981). In Mil -, U.S. 232, 93 L.Ed.2d ton, Columbia Circuit re (1986). factor, The first subject fused to matter apply the continuing doc violation discrimination, trine to different each resurrect several otherwise time- Although event. they barred both injury claims in involved denied promotions context of decision, allegedly they on the basis of race when different in plaintiffs failed several allege respects. critical a nexus between the events. court noted that First, GMH offered position to allow a more application liberal Roberts, albeit at a different rate. Ed doctrine provide would an end-run around Carter, the administrator in actually the policy underlying Title 180-day VIPs considered promotion, Roberts for the but filing requirement: Protecting employers failed to offer position at fair terms. from the having burden of to defend by contrast, Administrator Arnold against arising claims out of remote mana never considered Roberts gerial decisions. policy Id. This seems duty when had a to do Clearly, so. particularly applicable here because Rob these two unfortunate arose incidents from erts admitted that he knew at the time of entirely different transgressions in the de- the 1978 incident that he had suffered ra cisionmaking processes. The former re- cially disparate easily He treatment. could wrongful sulted from a discounting of preserved have rights at that time. See work; value of Roberts’ the latter resulted Dumas Vernon, v. Town Mount Ala wrongful from a discounting of Roberts’ bama, 612 F.2d (cit Cir.1980) abilities. ing Elliott Sperry Corp., Rand commonality between the F.R.D. two (D.Minn.1978)). incidents was the fact they both had The continuing violation doctrine does the same result: Roberts did not receive a give exist to a second chance to an promotion opportunity on fair terms. As employee who legitimate allowed a Title Supreme noted, Court mere commonali VII claim lapse. It is only when ty of effect is not sufficient to invoke the substantial nexus exists a timely- between continuing violation doctrine. See United filed claim and an otherwise time-barred Evans, Air Lines v. 431 U.S. 97 S.Ct. claim they may be as viewed constitut- 1885, 52 (1977); L.Ed.2d 571 Scarlett v. ing single a violation, part of which falls Seaboard Coast Co., Line Railroad within the period. limitations Moreover, F.2d (5th 1982). Cir. BUnit existence such a nexus serves to alleviate the employer’s in burden defend- The second which factor the Fifth Circuit ing a managerial remote decision. prin- set forth in Berry, frequency, sug- also ciple, much of the evidence gests that the em- that the two incidents were not suffi- so, doing but it was Roberts’ effect of doctrine. 715 to invoke ciently related competent evi to sufficient Although appropriate under burden submit at 981. years demonstrating connexity three be circumstances, incidents some two dence enough to demonstrate Scarlett v. Sea may be the incidents. tween apart Cf. violation, the continuing aof 676 F.2d Line Railroad existence board Coast present properly do not 1982). us B (5th facts before This he failed Cir. Unit example, two identical For a case. such to do. by three separated incidents discriminatory essentially Court found The District continu- a might properly constitute years solely on the based continuing violation a Where, however, ing violation. employer. The employee and identity of discriminato- bar, incongruent two case reach this conclusion be to appeared court by substantial a separated are ry events discriminatory inci the effect cause hiatus, supports further hiatus time wrongfully job same: was the dents dis- incidents were two conclusion each lesser-qualified white man to a went unrelated. and crete erred as a matter Court The District time. factor, permanence to the Finally, as continuing considering the effects in lawof was the suggested the Fifth Circuit which deciding in whether acts of time-barred three,1 ad- of the important most the two acts existed. See nexus between rights of his was aware mitted that Evans, 431 Air Lines U.S. United at that them have asserted He could 1978. (1977). The 52 L.Ed.2d injure Roberts to was able time. GMH parties to the discrimination identity of the to knowingly failed only again because continuing to not sufficient invoke is arising out rights. claim his A exercise hold otherwise To doctrine. violation only be- “continuing” is injury an 180-day fil meaningless the would render to knowingly fails plaintiff putative cause Bur statute. of the See ing requirement exactly the sort of claim is relief seek Co., 755 F.2d Container nam v. Amoco 180-day by bar Congress intended to Cir.1985). Court period. limitation finding continu the existence erred Moreover, Circuit noted as the Fifth ing violation. is not exhaustive. list of factors Berry, that arising out Accordingly, Roberts claim deci- the two Here, shows that the record untimely. incident barred the 1978 made different decisionmak- sions were sur- circumstances find the Although we to ers, one of whom offered re- particularly rounding 1978 incident terms, Roberts, though disparate on so to neutralize not for it is us pugnant, consider to even whom refused other of as the mandate Congressional explicit to both common facts Roberts. Therefore, the filing requirement. employee 180-day identity of the was the incidents inci- finding that the 1981 entity employing discrimina- District Court’s and Title VII identity will a violation Such tory decisionmaker. dent constituted plaintiff is AFFIRMED where a Title VII always exist erroneous and not allowing rights to his after finding seeks relief its is not Thus, identity by “continuing this itself viola- lapse. incidents constituted this persuasive. REMAND We is REVERSED. tion” with instructions District Court to the case shred of offer a does not The record barred, as time the 1978 claim Dismiss to any there suggesting evidence damages awarded to reduce the highly keep system this policy sort of they are extent that Plaintiff v. Olin See Clark qualified man down. a result solely as recoverable (5th Cir. Inc., 556 F.2d kraft, award violation, limit Roberts’ net 1977). events had discrete Two perceived have Vernon, rights, he should or when Compare Dumas v. Town Mount occurring.” noted, Alabama, on that discrimination 974, focus is “The in which we Cir.1980) Sperry (citing Elliott v. event, logic, have should in fairness what (D.Minn.1978)). Corp., F.R.D. protect person Rand average lay to act alerted solely fees attorneys resulting “right”, those boss or employee, should prosecuting from claim. so, be submit, resisted. This is I even employee where the who is unfairly treated HILL, Judge, specially Circuit protected is a of member group. If the concurring: “raw deal” (in case) was not related to this My of this case review leads me to be race, federal law and federal courts not are that, lieve had I been burdened with the implicated. protected Members of groups determining non, of task discrimination vel are court”; not “wards federal However, I have should found none. judges guardians are not injus to correct properly upon burden district tices they minority races, wherever involve evidence, judge who heard observed the elderly, or those of a mistreated sex. employed finding witnesses and fact skills Nevertheless, where the person victim of sharpened by bearing the burden case nel action proverbial which is the “raw say after case. I cannot the trial deal” is a minority race, member of a there judge’s finding of in 1981 is discrimination are some implications. valid See McDon support in concur, without I evidence. Douglas Corp. Green, nell 411 U.S. therefore, in the result of A Judge Part 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 Spellman’s opinion and concur in all said in (1973) (evidence deserving that a member opinion. the rest of the See Pullman- suspect job class lost a opportunity to Swint, 273, 290, Standard v. 456 U.S. person part of such a class establish 1781, 1791, (1982)(court S.Ct. 72 L.Ed.2d 66 prima es a case of unlawful discrimi appeals may reverse district court’s find facie nation). History has acknowledged; been ing of discriminatory intent if because erroneous). racial discrimination in employ ment has pervasive, been so My along concerns are these lines. Fed- required is come explana forth with an eral law controls and denounces racial dis- tion. That is as it should be. in employment. crimination One who gets or, a “raw deal” because of race— Taking above, then, right as the “... cases, sex, age, other may find relief etc.— point view,”1 my review of this case is in federal courts. troubling. Nevertheless, an employee individual Mr. may well have been handed may given be personnel “raw deal” in a “a Clearly, raw deal.”2 under the McDon- in the absence any action nell Douglas analysis, presented he pri- by forbidden people law. Most outside the My ma case. concern stems from the facie employing unit never hear of the unfair fact that the strong made out a personnel action. Fair people minded who that, case whatever motivated adminis- its do of it naturally yearn learn to correct it. personnel action, trator in his it was not power so, Given to do might one correct the race. The hospital presented uncontrovert- injustice though even power exercise of proof following ed personnel actions authority. exceeds administrator, its Ken Arnold: judges people. Federal are fair minded (a) 31, 1981, On promoted October They impressive power. have In the area Albritton, Archie male, a black from of employment, promotion, discharge, de- registered staff nurse to head nurse motion, etc., their authority plenary. is not emergency room. courts must injustices Federal correct re- sulting (b) 19, 1981, from violations of law. On promoted federal October decide, cases, temptation to in other who Knight, female, Ann a black to the posi- Georgia 1. See Ellison v. finding R.R. 87 Ga. 2. Such a is far from demanded. Rob- 706-707, (1891) been, (Bleckley, 13 S.E. 809 years, Chief erts had a member of a mainte- Justice) (“When right point department view is dis- deplorable nance which had a covered, problem non-performance is more than faulty half record of perform- solved.”). ance. Supervisor, which is tion of House third hospital.

in the chain of command at COALITION AGAINST A RAISED EX PRESSWAY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee , (c) 13, 1981, promoted On October Cross-Appellant. Stevens, female, a black to the Amanda Supervisor of House Unlimited, Downtown Mobile Mobile His shift, During third shift. her Ms. Ste- Development Commission, toric Histor operational command of the vens had Society, ic Mobile Preservation Oak hospital. leigh Society, Garden East Church (d) 20, 1981, promot- On November Assoc., Development Street Old Dau Yates, female, ed Deborah a black from phin Way Association, Plaintiffs, registered Supervisor nurse to House Cross-Appellants, the second shift. Preservation, National Trust for Historic (e) responsible recruiting He was Plaintiff-Intervenor, Appellee, county’s physicians, one of the first black Furlow, Dr. Jessie to the area. Arnold up set interviews with the staff DOLE, capacity Elizabeth in her official helped arrange financing Dr. Furlow Secretary Department of the U.S. open practice in Quincy. her Transportation, Ray Barnhart, Perhaps in this case the administrator his official as Administrator of the Fed foolishly placed emphasis too much on the Administration, Highway eral Defend college degree person held hired as ants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, supervisor; perhaps supervisor he chose a Royce King, capacity G. in official among “drinking at barbecues or from High Director of the State of Alabama management If this ill buddies.” sort of way Department, Defendant-Appellant, hospital, hospital may serves the wish Cross-Appellee. Unless, arrangements. to make other shown, though, the administrator has been No. 86-7892. evidence, by direct or circumstantial Appeals, United States Court have taken the action he did as an act of Eleventh Circuit. against Roberts on account race, of Roberts’ it is not a federal court Jan.

matter. the prima By finding that case facie informal,

coupled with the secretive and

subjective process decision constitutes cir-

cumstantial evidence of discrimination suf-

ficient to overcome the direct evidence that intent,

the administrator harbored no such I say case was carried. cannot that the found, judge

trial could not have so wheth-

er I should have or not.

Therefore, I concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Charles ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GADSDEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant. Gadsden County, Florida, Defendant

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Jan 13, 1988

Citation: 835 F.2d 793

Docket Number: 86-3826

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.