Abdel ELNASHAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, United States Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Minneapolis Office, Interested Parties-Appellees.
No. 05-3861.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2006. Filed: April 26, 2007.
484 F.3d 1046
Marko J. Mrkonich, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Stephanie D. Sarantopoulos, on the brief), for appellee.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
I.
Elnashar is an Arab-American, born in Egypt, and is a Muslim. He was hired as a manager trainee at the Bloomington, Minnesota, Speedway SuperAmerica store in the summer of 2001. Manager trainees may have the opportunity to become store managers after they complete various performance goals, and Elnashar hoped to become a SuperAmerica store manager. In September 2001, he was transferred to the Rice Street store in St. Paul, to assist a new manager who had recently been promoted from a manager trainee position. In November, he requested to be transferred to a store where he could work with a more experienced manager. The district manager, Mark Erickson, transferred Elnashar to the Seventh Street store in St. Paul, where he worked with store manager Anne Stehr and associate manager Jean Sсhneider. While he was at the Seventh Street store, Elnashar‘s position changed from manager trainee to assistant manager trainee. His corporate allotment of
Elnashar also experienced interpersonal difficulties with associate manager Schneider at the Seventh Street store. His work was not as focused on managerial training as he would have liked; instead, Schneider asked him to perform tasks a cashier could do, such as mopping the floor, and belittled him in front of coworkers and customers. In addition, Schneider asked him if he had a harem, how many wives he had as a Muslim, and whether he rode camels around everywhere in Egypt. Elnashar also reports that Schneider made unwelcome body contact with him when they were working together in clоse quarters. According to Schneider, Elnashar was rude to her and others, refused to perform certain tasks and work certain shifts, and walked out of his shifts at least twice after losing his temper during arguments with her. In March 2002, after one employee told Schneider that she felt Elnashar was harassing her because of her race, Schneider reported the complaint to Erickson, who issued Elnashar a written warning for refusing to perform shift duties, leaving his shift, and creating a hostile work environment. Erickson asked Elnashar to sign the warning, but he protested and left work. He did not return to work in the following days but waited for Erickson to “call [him] and set things straight.” That call never came, and SuperAmerica ultimately classified Elnashar as having voluntarily resigned by abandoning his job.
Shortly after these events, in the spring of 2002, FBI agents visited Elnashar‘s former supervisors at the SuperAmerica stores to inquire about his address and background as part of its PENTTBOM investigation into the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. Schneider and Stehr were incorrect in some of the background information they gave the FBI, particularly regarding where Elnashar grew up. In April 2002, two FBI agents came to Elnashar‘s home, questioned him about whether he was engaged in making bombs, and searched his house. They found nothing suspicious and told him that the investigation would be closed. According to Elnashar, one of the agents, Myron Umbel, told him that sоmeone from Speedway SuperAmerica had called the FBI to report that Elnashar was making bombs.
Elnashar filed suit against SuperAmerica for employment discrimination on October 10, 2002. He argued that SuperAmerica failed to promote him, demoted him, and constructively discharged him because of his race, in violation of
Elnashar first requested by letter in February 2003 that the FBI send him the records of his investigation. The FBI treated this as a request for access under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act and denied it, invoking the FOIA law enforcement exemption and Privacy Act protection for the informant‘s identity. Elnashar initially did not seek administrative appeal of this decision. Rather, he served a subpoena on the FBI demanding the records and Agent Umbel‘s testimony and filed a motion to compel production. The magistrate3 denied this motion because Elnashar had not exhausted his administrative remedies, i.e. the Department of Justice procedures formulated in response to United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 71 S.Ct. 416, 95 L.Ed. 417 (1951), which establish a chain of command for determining whether Department of Justice employees will disclose confidential material, id. at 468, 71 S.Ct. 416. After this ruling, Elnashar followed the Touhy procedures and resubmitted his request to the FBI. He obtained a redacted copy of his FBI record, but the FBI still refused to disclose the informant‘s identity. Elnashar served a
While his discovery motions were pending in his suit against SuperAmerica, Elnashar also filed a sеparate lawsuit against the Department of Justice, the FBI, Agent Umbel, and other unknown FBI agents seeking expungement of his record, access to his record, and damages under the Privacy Act, FOIA, and several constitutional amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. This Court affirmed. Elnashar v. United States Dep‘t of Justice, 446 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2006).
Elnashar‘s inability to obtain the FBI files and to depose Agent Umbel also prompted him to request a stay of SuperAmerica‘s motion for summary judgment while his appeal of the interlocutory order was pending. The district court denied this request, treating it as a motion for a continuance under
With the discovery motions resolved, the district court granted SuperAmerica‘s motion for summary judgment on Elnashar‘s substantive race discrimination claims on September 22, 2005, finding that many of the events Elnashar experienced at SuperAmerica were not adverse employment actions, Elnashar failed to show that SuperAmerica‘s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretextual, and Elnashar‘s experiences did not rise to the level of actionable harassment on his hostile еnvironment claim.5
II.
A. Discovery Motions
Elnashar appeals all orders denying his attempts to learn the identity of the informant whose tip prompted the FBI to investigate him. These orders include the district court‘s order denying his motion to compel the FBI to produce the relevant files and Agent Umbel‘s testimony and its denial of his motion for a continuance. In addition, Elnashar expends substantial efforts in his brief challenging the district court‘s grant of summary judgment to the Department of Justice and FBI on his FOIA and Privacy Act claims. We already have reviewed and affirmed the district court‘s judgment on these claims, 446 F.3d at 793, which Elnashar raised in a separate lawsuit and which are not part of the final order from which he now appeals in his suit against SuperAmerica. As we cannot revisit Elnashar‘s FOIA and Privacy Act claims in this appeal, our review is limited to the October 29, 2004, denial of his motion to compel and the February 15, 2005, denial of his motion for a continuance.
1. Motion to compel
We generally review the denial of a motion to compel production of evidence for gross abuse of discretion. Toghiyany v. AmeriGas Propane, Inc., 309 F.3d 1088, 1093 (8th Cir. 2002). Even under the ordinary abuse of discretion standard we have applied in criminal cases to a district court‘s refusal to require disclosure of a confidential informant‘s identity, see United States v. Crenshaw, 359 F.3d 977, 1005 (8th Cir. 2004), Elnashar‘s appeal fails.
The district court summarily affirmed the magistrate‘s order denying Elnashar‘s motion to compel the FBI to disclose the informаnt‘s identity. In explaining why Elnashar was not entitled to this information, the magistrate accepted the FBI‘s contention that the informant‘s identity was privileged under Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). The Touhy regulations under which the FBI refused to disclose the informant‘s identity track the common law informant‘s privilege.
We see no abuse of discretion, gross or otherwise, in the district court‘s decision to affirm the magistrate‘s denial of Elnashar‘s motion to compel. Elnashar argues that the magistrate incorrectly placed the burden on him to show need for the information, where she first should have required the FBI to show that the informant‘s identity was indeed privileged by proving that the informant had been promised confidentiality, citing Department of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 113 S.Ct. 2014, 124 L.Ed.2d 84 (1993). While Landano held that the FBI is not entitled to a presumption that all informants are confidential for purposes of FOIA exemptiоns, id. at 181, 113 S.Ct. 2014, the magistrate afforded the FBI no such presumption in ruling on this
2. Motion for continuance
We review the denial of a motion for continuance under
Elnashar‘s substantive claims alleged that SuperAmerica discriminated against him because of his race by failing to promote him to the position of manager; demoting him in terms of work location, job title, and hours; reprimanding him; constructively discharging him; and subjecting him to a hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment to SuperAmerica on all claims. Mindful that summary judgment should be granted in employment discrimination cases only if the evidence could not support any reasonable inference of discrimination, we review the district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo, affirming if there is no genuine issue of material fact and SuperAmerica is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Peterson v. Scott County, 406 F.3d 515, 520 (8th Cir. 2005);
Observing that both parties agreed that McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), provided the appropriate framework for analysis, the district court analyzed Elnashar‘s employment discrimination claims under this familiar standard. In his reply brief, however, Elnashar contends that his is a “mixed-motive” case and that the district court should have modified the McDonnell Douglas standard in light of Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 101-02, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), allowing him to survive summary judgment if he raised a genuine issue of material fact that either SuperAmeriсa‘s asserted reasons for its decisions were pretextual or that unlawful discrimination was a motivating factor in its decisions. As we have held, however, Desert Palace is entirely consistent with our precedent under which a plaintiff survives summary judgment either by providing direct evidence of discrimination or by creating an inference of discrimination through the McDonnell Douglas framework. Peterson, 406 F.3d at 521; Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004). Elnashar has no direct evidence of discrimination. He points to associate manager Schneider‘s inquiries into whether he had a harem and rode camels in Egypt, but her comments do not raise a genuine issue of fact about whether unlawful discrimination was a motivating factor in SuperAmerica‘s decisions; her questions had no connеction to the decisional process and are better characterized as stray remarks. See Breeding v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 164 F.3d 1151, 1157 (8th Cir. 1999). Thus, the McDonnell Douglas framework is the appropriate mode of analysis for Elnashar‘s claims, as the district court concluded.
Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of making out a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he belonged to a protected group; (2) he was qualified for the position in question; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Tatum v. City of Berkeley, 408 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 2005). Once the plaintiff carries his or her burden to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Peterson, 406 F.3d at 521. If the defendant satisfies its burden, then the plaintiff must show that the nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for discrimination. Id.
The district court rejected Elnashar‘s claim that SuperAmerica discriminated against him on the basis of his race when it promoted a white manager trainee instead of him to the position of manager at the Rice Street store. The court concluded that SuperAmerica asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not promoting Elnashar to manager because the individual it promoted had more relevant experience than Elnashar and Erickson had concerns that Elnashar was insubordinate. See Pope v. ESA Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 1001, 1007 (8th Cir. 2005). It rejected all his theories of pretext. Elnashar does not contest the district court‘s judgment on his failure to promote claim in either of his briefs; thus we affirm on this issue.
2. Demotion
Elnashar alleges that SuperAmerica discriminated against him on the basis of his race by demoting him. Elnashar argues that his transfer to the Seventh Street store, change in job title from manager trainee to assistant manager trainee, and reduction in hours each amounted to a demotion. The district court held that the work location transfer was not an adverse employment action, and thus Elnashar failed to establish a prima facie case on that incident, because it did not entail a significant change in working conditions or a diminution in Elnashar‘s title, salary, or benefits. See Zhuang v. Datacard Corp., 414 F.3d 849, 854 (8th Cir. 2005). Indeed, there is no dispute that Elnashar wanted to be transferred to a store where he could work with a more experienced manager than the recently promoted manager at the Rice Street store, and Stehr was an experienced manager at the Seventh Street store. Elnashar was trained to perform new tasks at the Seventh Street store; his rate of pay did not change, and none of the еvidence suggests his change in title, which occurred around two months after the transfer, had anything to do with the transfer. Thus, we affirm the district court‘s conclusion that Elnashar cannot make out a prima facie case that the transfer was an adverse employment action.
Elnashar‘s job title reclassification from manager trainee to assistant manager trainee, on the other hand, was an adverse employment action. SuperAmerica district manager Erickson admitted as much in his deposition. However, SuperAmerica offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the reclassification—Elnashar‘s allotment of manager trainee hours had expired, and Erickson did not feel Elnashar was ready for promotion to manager because his supervisors had reported incidents of insubordination. On the issue of Elnashar‘s reduction in hours, SuperAmerica does not dispute that Elnashar established a prima facie case, but it offers its company policy of making store-wide reductions as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for reducing Elnashar‘s hours.
Elnashar argues that SuperAmerica‘s reasons for changing his title and reducing his hours are pretextual, on several theories. First, he argues that certain statements by his coworkers show SuperAmerica‘s underlying discriminatory intent. According to Elnashar, Schneider inquired whеther he had a harem and rode camels in Egypt. Elnashar has not connected these comments to Schneider‘s decisions about his schedule and has not shown that any other decisionmaker at SuperAmerica endorsed them, however, so the district court was correct to characterize them as “stray remarks in the workplace.” Breeding, 164 F.3d at 1157; see also Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925, 934 (8th Cir. 2006) (decisionmakers’ racially offensive statements not related to decisional process were stray comments, not strong evidence of discriminatory intent). We
Elnashar also contends that SuperAmerica has manufactured its asserted reasons for his demotions after the fact to cover up a conspiracy to fire him. He doubts that SuperAmerica really had an hours-reduction policy in early 2002, pointing out that Stehr and Schneider never cut their hours and that Erickson does not remember ordering a district-wide reduction in hours. He further contends that the managers’ testimony that Erickson ordered the demotions is inconsistent with company records because someone other than Erickson signed the “Employee Data Change Forms” that changed his title and cut his hours, and no one had Elnashar sign the forms as required by SuperAmerica policy. None of thesе arguments raises a genuine issue of material fact to support Elnashar‘s theory of pretext. That Stehr and Schneider‘s hours were not cut is not evidence of pretext, because Elnashar was not similarly situated to Stehr and Schneider, who outranked him. Erickson‘s inability to recall the hours-reduction policy does not dispute Stehr and Schneider‘s testimony that the policy existed. Finally, SuperAmerica‘s failure to comply with its communication policies in changing Elnashar‘s status, and that someone other than Erickson signed the formal documentation of those changes, may suggest that SuperAmerica was disorganized, but not that its asserted reasons for demoting Elnashar are pretext for a conspiracy to fire him on account of his race.
Elnashar also urged the district court to find pretext on the basis of his evidence that a SuperAmerica employee provided a false tip about him to the FBI. The district court found this theory to be totally unsubstantiated. As all of Elnashar‘s attempts to compel disclosure of the informant‘s identity had failed, his only evidence of this theory was his testimony that Agent Umbel told him that a SuperAmerica employee called the FBI to report that he was making bombs. The district court correctly concluded that this evidence was inadmissible hearsay and thus could not raise a genuine issue of material fact. Elnashar argues that the statement should have been admitted through exceptions to the hearsay rule in
3. Reprimand
Elnashar also argues that SuperAmerica discriminated against him when Erickson issued him a written reprimand. Like the district court, we reject this theory because the reprimand was not an adverse employment action. A reprimand is an adverse employment action only when the employer uses it as a basis for changing the terms or conditions of the employee‘s job for the worse. Singletary v. Missouri Dep‘t of Corr., 423 F.3d 886, 892 n. 5 (8th Cir. 2005); Burchett v. Target Corp., 340 F.3d 510, 518-19 (8th Cir. 2003). The reprimаnd did not affect Elnashar‘s terms and conditions of employment, so he cannot make out a prima facie case on this claim.
4. Constructive discharge
Elnashar resigned his position at SuperAmerica after the reprimand but characterizes this as a constructive discharge, pointing to Schneider‘s poor treatment of him and to Erickson and Stehr‘s inadequate consideration of his side of the story. Constructive discharge occurs when an employer deliberately creates “intolerable working conditions with the intention of forcing the employee to quit” and the employee does quit. Breeding, 164 F.3d at 1159 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To show he was constructively discharged, Elnashar would have to show that a reasonable person in his situation would find the conditions intolerable and that SuperAmerica intended to force him to quit. Tatum v. Arkansas Dep‘t of Health, 411 F.3d 955, 960 (8th Cir. 2005). Elnashar has not met either requirement. He argues that he had no choice but to quit because he reasonably believed there was no chance for fair treatment, Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 568, 574 (8th Cir. 1997), but the facts simply do not support this claim. Elnashar never reported the details of his problems with Schneider to Stehr, but only requested that she train him instead of having Schneider do it, and he was neither persistent nor patient in his efforts to discuss the situation with Erickson. Moreover, when Schneider alleged that Elnashar racially harassed his coworker, Erickson investigated and found that Elnashar had done nothing wrong. Under these circumstances, it was not reasonable for Elnashar to believe he had no chance for fair treatment at SuperAmerica. The evidence shows only that he felt unfairly criticized and that his work conditions, particularly his encounters with Schneider, were unpleasant to him. Such conditions are not “so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign,” Breeding, 164 F.3d at 1160 (internal quotation marks omitted), and Elnashar‘s constructive discharge claim fails.
5. Hostile work environment
Finally, Elnashar claims that SuperAmerica subjected him to a hostile work environment at the Seventh Street store, again primarily bеcause of Schneider‘s conduct. To establish this claim, Elnashar would have to show that: (1) he belongs to a protected group; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) a causal nexus exists between the harassment and his group membership; and (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of his employment. Gordon v. Shafer Contracting Co., 469 F.3d 1191, 1194-95 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court concluded that Schneider‘s inquiries about harems and riding camels, as well as Elnashar‘s allegation that she made unwelcome physical contact with him at work, did not rise to the level of actionable harassment because they were isolated incidents that were not severe or pervasive. The district сourt additionally concluded
III.
Because the evidence cannot support any reasonable inference of discrimination, SuperAmerica was entitled to summary judgment. In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance and compel disclosure of additional evidence that Elnashar only speculated would save his case. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.