Desi A. Ledbetter, an African-American, sued his employer, Alltel Corporate Services, Inc. (ACS), for race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After a bench trial, the district court 1 found for Ledbetter, awarding backpay and compensatory damages. ACS appeals, arguing that the district court erred in finding intentional race discrimination, admitting statistical evidence, calculating backpay, and awarding compensatory damages. Ledbetter cross-appeals, challenging the calculation of back-pay. Jurisdiction being proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
I.
ACS provides corporate services to its parent, ALLTEL Corporation, and to other subsidiaries. Within ACS, the Administrative Services department delivers services such as real estate, corporate travel, mail services, and document services. Steven A. Kavanaugh, the Vice President of Administrative Services, makes employment decisions regarding the personnel in Administrative Services. Document Services — the department at issue in this appeal — is the sub-component of Administrative Services that provides document copying, distribution, and printing services for ALLTEL and its subsidiaries.
In July 1999, Kavanaugh and the Director of Office Services hired Desi Led-better as the Customer Service Supervisor within Document Services. Ledbetter reported to the director and was responsible for overseeing and managing the copiers, incoming copy and print jobs, outsourced print jobs, and pre-press production. He also maintained the Customer Services budget and supervised four employees. Ledbetter consistently received positive performance evaluations from the director, as well as yearly merit increases in salary.
In February 2001, ALLTEL reorganized due to instability in the telecommunications market, eliminating over 900 jobs, including several at ACS. The Director of Office Services position was eliminated, with its responsibilities distributed within Administrative Services. On February 15, Kavanaugh named Ledbetter “acting” manager of Document Services, where he assumed the director’s duties of supervising the Production Services employees and managing the Document Services budget. He retained his previous duties as Customer Service Supervisor.
In March 2001, Ledbetter asked Kava-naugh for additional compensation in his new position. Kavanaugh replied that he was “acting” manager until further notice, and that no reclassification would be authorized until a decision was made about the future status of the Document Services department. Kavanaugh, concerned about the declining production volume in Document Services, told Ledbetter that upper management was discussing the possibility of outsourcing the department.
Ledbetter did not make further inquiry until August 30, 2001, when he asked Ka-vanaugh if his position could be evaluated for reclassification and a pay raise. Kava-naugh responded that he would consider *721 reclassification at the beginning of the next year. After hearing no response by the beginning of 2002, Ledbetter e-mailed Ka-vanaugh about the reclassification. In February 2002, Kavanaugh agreed to submit Ledbetter’s “acting” manager position to the Corporate Compensation department for evaluation. 2
To begin the evaluation process, on February 20, 2002, Kavanaugh gave Ledbetter approval to fill out a job evaluation form for his position. Ledbetter completed it on February 22 and returned it to Kava-naugh. After receiving no response for almost a month, Ledbetter asked Kava-naugh if he had received it. On March 13, Kavanaugh said he had not found time to review it. Anxious to remove the term “acting” from his title, on April 15, Ledbet-ter decided to involve Human Resources in the reclassification process. After a series of e-mails between Ledbetter, Kavanaugh, and Human Resources in late spring, Ka-vanaugh forwarded the form to Corporate Compensation on June 14. On July 29, Ledbetter again asked Human Resources the status of his reclassification. He did not receive a response until August 13, when he learned that Kavanaugh was still discussing the issue with Corporate Compensation.
On October 15, Kavanaugh informed Ledbetter that Corporate Compensation had authorized a reclassification of his position from pay grade 13 to 15. When the reclassification took effect on January 1, 2003, Kavanaugh recommended that Led-better’s salary be calculated at the 25th percentile of grade 15, or $50,050 — an 18.6% increase over his previous salary. Ledbetter responded that he believed pay grade 16 was more appropriate, because it was the grade at which most management positions were classified. He also requested that Kavanaugh authorize retroactive pay to February 2001, when he became “acting” manager. Kavanaugh denied both requests, prompting Ledbetter again to take his concerns to Human Resources. After reviewing Ledbetter’s reclassification process, members of Human Resources and Corporate Compensation determined that Ledbetter received a fair evaluation,, was properly classified at pay grade 15, and should not receive retroactive pay.
Ledbetter sued ACS, claiming he was paid less than other Caucasian managers and forced to assume the title of “acting” manager for 22 months while attempting to get reclassified. After a bench trial, the district court held that ACS intentionally discriminated against Ledbetter by failing to reclassify his position at the time of the reorganization in February 2001, paying him less than other Caucasian managers between February 2001 and January 2003, and giving him the “acting” title for 22 months. As to damages, the district court determined that Ledbetter’s pay grade was properly grade 15, but ordered that it be retroactive to when he became “acting” manager. The court awarded Ledbetter $14,421.91 in backpay, $22,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, and costs and attorney’s fees. Both parties appeal. ■
*722 II.
On appeal, ACS argues that the district court’s finding of intentional discrimination is not factually supported by the record. This court reviews the district court’s ultimate finding of discrimination for clear error, giving due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a);
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,
The district court properly applied the
McDonnell Douglas
burden-shifting analysis to determine whether ACS engaged in intentional race discrimination in its decisions about Ledbetter.
See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
On appeal, ACS asserts the same arguments as raised to the district court in order to justify its refusal to reclassify Ledbetter’s position until January 2003. First, ACS relies on Kavanaugh’s testimony that he did not seek additional compensation for Ledbetter in March 2001, because the future of the Document Services department was uncertain at that time. The district court rejected this argument, finding that ALLTEL’s Compensation Management Guide required a different result.
See Floyd v. State of Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
The district court also found no evidence in the record or in the Guide to support possible outsourcing as a reason to pay employees at too low a grade. ACS disputes this finding as an impermissible
*723
attack on its business judgment.
See Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
Next, ACS argues that cost-cutting measures necessitated by the reorganization delayed Ledbetter’s reclassification. Specifically, ACS contends that a number of employees assumed additional duties without increased compensation after the reorganization. The district court disagreed based on the language of the Compensation Management Guide and Kavanaugh’s treatment of other employees in his department around the time of the reorganization.
During the reorganization, Kavanaugh quickly initiated a reclassification and pay raise for Jody Little, Manager of Contracts, who became Staff Manager of Travel after the reorganization. In fact, her reclassification was submitted without her knowledge and she received a pay raise approximately 11 days after Kavanaugh forwarded the paperwork to Corporate Compensation. This contrasts with the 22 months it took Ledbetter to get reclassified. Although ACS tries to distinguish this decision by arguing that Little was “promoted” rather than reclassified, both Ledbetter and Little assumed additional responsibilities in a different department while retaining their previous duties. Similarly, both employees had new departmental titles for their positions, unlike other employees that ACS identifies as “similarly situated.” While ACS argues that Led-better did not assume as many additional duties as Little, the district court found that this did not justify the refusal to reclassify Ledbetter’s position. As Kava-naugh made the decisions regarding both Ledbetter and Little, the district court was uniquely positioned to determine whether ACS’s stated reason for the different treatment was pretextual.
See Jackson v. City of St. Louis,
Ledbetter also identified Melissa J. Van Dell, whose position was reclassified in July 2000 from Manager, to Staff Manager, of Furniture and Interiors. Again, Ka-vanaugh was the supervisor responsible to submit the paperwork to Corporate Compensation, who approved the reclassification and salary increase in less than a week. ACS argues that Van Dell is not similarly-situated to Ledbetter, because her reclassification occurred before the reorganization. The district court believed, however, that ALLTEL began expressing concern about the failing telecommunications market around the time that Van Dell was reclassified. While the test is rigorous for determining whether an employee is similarly-situated, the district court did not clearly err in finding Little and Van Dell similarly-situated to Ledbet-ter for purposes of determining whether Ledbetter was discriminated against.
See Harvey v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
ACS next argues that Ledbetter did not have enough management experience when the reorganization occurred in order to justify a reclassification or increasing *724 his ' compensation. Importantly, when Ledbetter asked Kavanaugh about reclassification in August 2001, he was told that he needed a few more months of management experience before meriting a pay raise or reclassification. The district court rejected the “inexperience” argument, finding that Kavanaugh gave him the additional duties' of a manager without increasing his compensation commensurately. In fact, Kavanaugh gave Ledbetter a positive performance ' evaluation as manager in February 2002, almost a full year before his reclassification finally took effect. The district court was particularly troubled that no other manager reporting to Kava-naugh was an “acting” manager for any length of time, much less 22 months. The district court did not clearly err in finding pretextual the “inexperience” rationale.
Finally, ACS argues that giving Ledbetter the title of “acting” manager is not an adverse employment action. An “adverse employment action” is a “material employment disadvantage, such as a change in salary, benefits or responsibilities.”
Sallis v. Univ. of Minn.,
III.
ACS., also appeals the district court’s admission into evidence of a list of ACS employees proffered by Ledbetter that identified each employee’s position and race. ACS argues this list is indefinite and incomplete, and therefore, not probative on intentional race discrimination. This evidentiary challenge is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
McPheeters, v. Black & Veatch Corp.,
Although the parties debate whether the employee list should have been admitted, the district court did not rely on it in finding intentional race discrimination. While the district court stated-that the under-representation of African-Americans in the management list was “eye-catching,” the court specified that it was not persuaded or convinced by the numbers in the list. Rather, the district court focused on the testimony relevant to the employment decisions about Ledbetter. Accordingly, this court finds no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence.
IV.
Both ACS and Ledbetter appeal the district court’s calculation of backpay. As this calculation involves factual determinations, this court reviews for clear error.
Hartley v. Dillard’s, Inc.,
The district court determined that Ledbetter was entitled to backpay in the amount of $14,421.91 — the difference between the amount that Ledbetter would have earned if his position were reclassi *725 fied to grade 15 at a penetration range 3 of 26% at the time of the reorganization, and the amount actually earned at grade 13. On appeal, the parties agree that the district court correctly determined that Led-better should be at pay grade 15, but dispute the 26% penetration range.
The district court based its calculations on exhibits and testimony offered by ACS that explained the penetration ranges. The 26% penetration range falls within the second quartile of pay grade 15, representing a finding that Ledbetter was “fully qualified” for the manager position. As Ledbetter received outstanding merit increases in both his supervisor and manager positions, the district court found he was performing as a “fully qualified candidate,” mandating a minimum penetration range of 26%.
ACS argues that Ledbetter should be placed in a 14% penetration range within grade 15, to reflect more accurately the salary increases of other employees receiving raises during and after the reorganization. ACS also argues that Ledbetter is not “fully qualified” for the management position, as he only received merit increases as a supervisor. These arguments are unavailing in light of Kavanaugh’s initial recommendation that Ledbetter be placed in a penetration range of 25% when his reclassification took effect in January 2003. Moreover, as the district court correctly found, Kavanaugh did authorize a merit increase for Ledbetter in February 2002 and February 2003.
Ledbetter argues that he deserves a 31% penetration range to account for the merit increases he received between 2001 and 2004. He argues that he will lose the benefit of these increases if the range is set at 26%. As the district court found, however, merit pay is distinct from salary and should not affect the employee’s range following reclassification. Given the specific findings in the record, the district court did not commit clear error in calculating the backpay award.
V.
Finally, ACS appeals the district court’s $22,000 award of compensatory damages, arguing it is not supported by competent proof of a genuine injury.
See Carey v. Piphus,
ACS emphasizes that the only evidence supporting Ledbetter’s request is his testimony. However, a plaintiffs own testimony, coupled with the circumstances of the case, can sustain the burden of establishing emotional suffering.
See Kim v. Nash Finch Co.,
VI.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
. Corporate Compensation evaluates each position within ALLTEL to determine the proper pay grade and salary (percentile) for the employee in the position. Positions may be evaluated and/or reclassified by Corporate Compensation at the request of an employee’s manager when market conditions change or the scope and responsibility of the employee’s position increase. Specifically, ALLTEL's Compensation Management Guide specifies that reclassifications usually occur due to reorganizations, changes in market factors, or changes in technology. ALLTEL designed the Guide to inform managers when reclassification requests should be submitted.
. The “penetration range” is the position of a salary within the pay range in relation to the minimum and maximum of that range. Each pay grade has four "quartiles,” each of which requires an individualized determination as to where an employee falls on the range, depending on experience.