*1 18, 1988. Decided Oct. NELSON, Before MARTIN and En Rehearing Rehearing Banc EDWARDS, Judges, and Senior Circuit 1, 1988. Denied Dec. Judge. Circuit MARTIN, Jr., F. Circuit
BOYCE Judge. Dr. D.T. Stafford and
Defendants appeal the district University of Tennessee for Sallee R. Bruhwiler judgment court’s discrimination case. this sexual Bruhwiler, female, April In a white toxicologist at the research was hired as a Toxicology Labo- University of Tennessee’s time, Memphis. At this she was ratory in experi- degree in working a master’s on University. Her at the pathology mental she was a satis- indicated that evaluations 1977, Stafford, In factory employee. June laboratory, asked director of the of chief toxi- responsibilities to assume сharge running person in cologist, the Nevertheless, laboratory. the entire and she was officially promoted was not time, salary increase. At not offered a *2 420 laboratory significantly charge. requested pay under- Bruhwiler back and 1977, fees, September attorneys’ In
staffed. Bruhwiler in- but not reinstatement. trial, Following formed Stafford that she was unable to a the district court bench toxicologist. perform the duties of chief found favor of Bruhwiler on both counts. it, responded, Stafford “Couldn’t handle non-promotion, On the issue of the dis- huh?” trict court found that Bruhwiler set out a resigned prima her facie case of sex discrimination as Aftеr Bruhwiler from “un- promotion” toxicologist, required by Douglas Corp. official to chief McDonnell v. males, Green, 792, 1817, Phillips Ha- 411 93 36 two white Albert U.S. S.Ct. Nichols, (1973). legitimate, non- rold were hired as research toxi- L.Ed.2d 668 As a by discriminatory In cologists and trained Bruhwiler. reason Bruhwiler’s non- Stafford, 1979, promotion, the defendants stated that urging at the Bruhwiler promoted Bruhwiler was not because she one-year took a leave of absence to do get along was unable to well with her degree. Shortly her research for master’s leave, employees. fellow The district court found after Bruhwiler took her proffered pretextual reason was рromoted Phillips supervi- and Nichols to by and that Bruhwiler had demonstrated a 1979, Fernandez, sory positions. In Scott preponderance of the evidence that she was male, a another white was hired as re- support In a victim of sex discrimination. toxicologist by and trained search Bruhwil- finding, specifical- of this the district court 1981, Fernandez, laboratory In er. em- ly “extremely quali- noted Bruhwiler was ployee seniority experi- with the least supervisor, fied” to a that she had in ence, posi- promoted supervisory to a supervisors, fact trained each of the male time, laboratory tion. At this was al- laboratory employ- and that several former sections, legedly organized into four each ees testified Bruhwiler was difficult to supervisor. supervisors The with a were Moreover, the district court work with. three white males and Ann Fowler. This testimony to the con- found that Stafford’s organizational notwithstanding, scheme trary credible. Fowler, longer a who had much tenure peers, than of her male The district court also found favor of officially supervisor was not classified as a discharge on the constructive salary and received a much than the lower established that a claim because Bruhwiler supervisors. male person reasоnable her shoes would have Here, compelled resign. felt the district 3, 1982, April On 16 and June pattern court noted a of sexual harassment grievances protesting filed administrative by inability to obtain promotion experienced of the less male relief, May administrative and Stafford’s supervisors. University’s The administra- suggestion that Bruhwiler look for rejected grievances tive dean without work elsewhere. The district court award- 4, holding 1982, hearing. May a On Staf- $29,000 $9,480 pay, ed Bruhwiler in back ford called Bruhwiler into his office and fees, attorneys’ costs and ex- $810 gave phone the names numbers of penses. places getting job, to contаct about though argue that the dis- Bruhwiler had never asked Staf- defendants now findings court’s help obtaining employment ford for else- trict Bruhwiler was 21, 1982, denied on account sex and where. On June Bruhwiler re- constructively discharged that she was satisfactory” ceived her first “less than clearly erroneous. were evaluation from Stafford. Bruhwiler re- signed September effective 1982. applicable standard review has Supreme fully set out Court. Rights Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Act of 2000e seq., finding U.S.C. et of intentional discrimi- Because § fact, brought finding suit civil Staf- nation is a the standard University alleging governing ford appellate and the discrimina- review of tory non-promotion and constructive dis- court’s of discrimination is that scrutiny propriately strict Rule of Proce- defend in Federal Civil set forth 52(a): fact not be “Findings proffered shall dure ants reason Bruhwiler’s non- erroneous, clearly set aside unless As promotion. previously, we have noted opportu- shall be regard due legitimacy “the of the articulated reason judge the credi- nity of trial court to employment subject *3 for the decision is This stan- bility of the witnesses.” ... particularly scrutiny close where evalu reviewing entitle plainly dard does not a subjective ation and the is evaluators them finding of the trier court to reverse the protected selves are not members of the it is convinced simply of fact because Dept. minority.” Develop Grano v. of dif- it decided the case that would have Columbus, 836, F.2d City ment 699 reviewing oversteps The court ferently. (6th Cir.1983). plau 837 The district court 52(a)if duty its under Rule the bounds of sibly fully quali that Bruhwiler found was of the duplicate the role it undertakes fied proffered and that the defendant’s rea clearly applying “In lower court. non-promotion son was for pretext for dis findings of a to the erroneous standard criminatory Consequently, the action. dis jury, ap- sitting without a district court discriminatory trict court’s non- constantly have in must pellate courts promotion cannot be set aside. is not to decide mind that their function Radio factual issues de novo.” Zenith The law in this circuit is clear that Inc., Research, 395 Corp. Hazeltine v. discharge working constructive exists if 1576, 123, 1562, 100, 23 89 S.Ct. U.S. per conditions are such that reasonable (1969). court's If L.Ed.2d feel son shoes would com plausible is account of the evidence pelled resign. Henry v. Lennox Indus entirety, in its light of the record viewed tries, 746, Inc., (6th Cir.1985). 768 F.2d appeals may reverse it the court of plausibly Again, the district court found that had it been though convinced that, being subjected to con in addition to fact, sitting the trier of it would have discrimination, tinuing Bruhwiler was “re differently.... weighed the evidence person quired to train the who would su her,” poor Id.
pervise at findings and, are on determina- When based complaints evaluation because credibility of regarding tions witness- effectively told to find an ultimately, was es, 52(a) greater def- Rule demands even Accordingly, the district court’s job. other findings; erence to the trial court’s discharge a constructive finding of only judge the trial can be aware clearly erroneous. in demeanor and tone of voice variations the district court is judgment heavily on that bear so the listener’s affirmed. understanding in what is and belief [Wjhen judge’s finding a triаl said.... NELSON, Judge, Circuit A. DAVID his decision to credit the is based on dissenting. one or more witness- testimony of of two es, told a each of whom has coherent authorized the federal Congress If had facially plausible story that is not contra- damages against assess universi- courts to ” n evidence, by finding, dicted extrinsic $40,000 “clumsy managenr'. ties for jd inconsistent, internally can virtual- if not judgment ente" ly clear error. never be case University of Tennessee this would Congress unexceptionable. But did City, seem v. Bessemer 470 U.S. Anderson 573-575, 1504, 1511-1512, give sweeping war- 105 S.Ct. 84 not the courts said, rather, (1985). actually Congress L.Ed.2d 518 rant. What for an em- it would be unlawful was that extremely narrow stan Under ployer review, say we unable to dard of are discharge to hire or to “to fail or refuse findings are challenged either of the clear individual, to discrimi- or otherwise non-pro discriminatory error. As for respect claim, against any individual with applied ap- nate motion the district court terms, conditions, compensation, to his interesting An indication of the trial privileges employment, judge’s Weltanschauung be found in race, color, religion, such individual’s his rather heated reaction to Mrs. Bruhwil- sex, origin.” or national 42 U.S.C. testimony er’s about an incident that oc- 2000e-2(a)(l). (Emphasis supplied.) § curred soon after Scott Fernandez was supervisor. made her Mr. Fernandez nor- very strongly district court felt mally arrived at work before Mrs. Bruhwil- shabbily had been treated did, every morning er “and came quarrel Dr. Stafford. I have no with in,” testified, as she “he had started sam- judgment. us, On the record before ples me to analyze.” This bothered however, I see no basis on which the dis- Bruhwiler, and she told Mr. Fernan- properly trict court could have concluded *4 dez he shouldn’t do that. Fernandez there- that Mrs. Bruhwiler was “discriminate[d] sex_” Stafford, upon got and, Dr. ... because of ... [her] court, told the the following interchange Try will, to you stretch it as the cloth of occurred: particular which this suit is made сannot be pattern by stretched to fit the laid “He said what goddamn down the hell is this Congress, my opinion. you drug noise about and screens. And I said Dr. if going we’re matter, As a preliminary isit worth not- have this kind of confrontation I think ing that the record contains not so much as we should privacy your have it in the any a hint of “sexual harassment.” No office. And so he right, said all and so laboratory one the spoke disparag- ever he and Scott and I went to his office and ingly women, disrespectfully or as far as repeated it, why he said you are mak- testimony the shows. There was no evi- ing all this damn noise about this. And I dence that the atmosphere in the work please yell said don’t at me. And he said place sexually charged was in any way. you any yelling yet. haven’t heard And There was no evidence of sexually he and Mr. Fernandez were both shak- suggestive talk or part conduct on the ing, visibly shaking. anyone Dr. Stafford or else connected with point well, And at that we discussed laboratory. The district — say, court did it, and he told me I exactly would do as in describing Mrs. testimony, Bruhwiler’s me, Mr. Fernandez told that Mr. Fernan- “explained that she the harassment she my supervisor, dez was I and would not Stafford,” received from Dr. but “harass- own, make my decisions on that Mr. Fer- ment” was Mrs. term, Bruhwiler’s and nandez would make all the decisions rela- announcing ruling his from the bench the drug tive to screens. judge explicitly district said “I don’t believe And at that time I told him there what he anything was sexual or immoral doing illegal, was he could about it.” We not run see a fair number of sexual personal business, this like a court, and he said harassment cases in this and Mrs. my this is any- and I will clearly do is not one of them. thing I want to. If Mrs. Bruhwiler felt “harassed” Dr. point And at that I left.” Stafford, it was not because Dr. Stafford because, was some sort of lecher but During as argument final judge judge bench, commented from the Dr. Staf- repeatedly incident, called attention this to, “proud ford was arrogant,” prone accusing Dr. “cursing Stafford of out” judgment,” “errors of lacking in “concern Mrs. Bruhwiler. When defense counsel as- people,” “incompetent” his as an serted Dr. Stafford had help tried to administrator. None of anything this has her in ways, various judge asked sex, to do with Mrs. Bruhwiler’s as far as I cursing “What (Page her out?” see, can except judge insofar as the 2 transcript.) Vol. of the Defense counsel have considered Dr. guilty responded, that,” of a “He didn’t do to which certain lack of gallantry failing pay replied, the court certainly “He did. He —of enough attention to the sex. did.” Referring, evidently, to Dr. Staf- heavy section—Mrs. “goddamn” the words use ford’s during must what responsibilities get “I stated, page at “hell,” the court period. Some very difficult get I believe decide earlier, was had he cursed months ... case in a civil [and] observe “extreme- called an through what gone Now, that is her out. her husband separation from again re- ly painful” judge 130 the page At case.” for, to care five children Dr. Staf- She had years. characterization his peated 10-year- twin out.” were whom youngest he cursed “I said conduct: ford’s money, Mrs. To earn additional bringing boys. sub- 139, after old And, page at nights or working three two said this: court again, ject up Services. Emergency Medical and a week there down came “Dr. Stafford Toxicologist carried to Chief Her then lab and [went] her out cursed increase, pay immediate again. no her out upstairs curse[d] pro- practice, invariable Well, Your Hon- LEADBETTER: MR. long as within, wait was to moting from out. anyone cursed or, believe I don’t attempting to before more months nine already told I have COURT: MR. pay in- bureaucracy to bestow get case. try the get to that. I found how or female— person on crease *5 The —male proof. all the to listened I have laboratory The promoted. had been who her out.” he cursed proof is and the summer was short-handed no whеn era an was Perhaps there were relative- employees several and his voice raise would gentleman Southern promised Dr. Stafford inexperienced. ly her, Bruhwiler as Mrs. say to lady and ato per- out help he that would Mrs. is did, the hell “What Dr. Stafford testified keep his to lab, he failed but sonally the drug and noise goddamn this Bruhwiler, surprisingly, Mrs. promise. not a man was screens,” Stafford but Dr. overwhelmed; three after herself found that to believe hard cloth, it is and the Toxicologist as resigned Chief she months have he would time when ever there was Toxi- Research job to her as returned and language addressing such faulted for said, when Dr. Staffоrd And all cologist. only conclude can One to man. another resignation, was her announced having his lay in sin Dr. Stafford’s that it, huh?” handle “Couldn’t talking he was lady it was forgotten should blood judge’s district That the have been may That to, anot man. entirely understanda- is at this egalitarian boiled in this have etiquette, even breach Dr. Staf- comment judge’s it was The age, but ble. profane frequently people” for his concern have “discrim- ford “doesn’t propensity aof to hardly evidence say can I Nor correct. because well be ... could any individual against inate sex_” wrong it necessarily had judge ... the individual’s such Stafford: of Dr. this he said manifestation significant more A much more in- anybody seen “I never have chivalry may be lack of Dr. Stafford’s Lab, Toxicology run to competent attitude swim” the “sink or found ought He I have heard.1 what on based Mrs. promoting after exhibited competence From fired, tomorrow. to be Toxicologist June of Chief position to incom- “For should [probably Although Mrs. of 1977. plaintiff’s apart from petence”], running the charge of believe, in not, I going on is what claim, know doesn’t woman, Ann laboratory entire —another there.” serology over charge of Fowler, put in any aca- claim to bench, judge laid no himself The from his remarks 1. Elsewhere in аrea of in Dr. qualifications Dr. Stafford demic not believe judge he did said Serologist Pau- help judge told Chief expertise; Bruh- how have known would a word ‘[sjerology’ rul- is his oral ... work. In that" her Sutton wiler in lette however, with," how the judge “[a]ca- conceded he asked her ing, familiar am quali- demically, fied_” Stafford] [Dr. spelled. is word plaintiff’s claim, But the as the district increase of It true 10%. that for is. fiscal fully understood, court year 1980-81, was not that Dr. Phillips Messrs. and Nichols uncaring, arrogant, or ill —who had been “unofficially” promoted in informed about going what was inon his when Mrs. Bruhwiler was off on a laboratory. The claim one-year had to be leave of paid absence—were that Dr. Stafford against $1,023 had discriminated per more annum than Ms. Fowler sex; Congress simply was. That differential was reduced to $673 had not granting authorized the of mone- year 1981-82, however, fiscal tary relief on Sympathy other basis. of trial Serologist’s time the Chief pay was plaintiff for the and distaste for the de- identical pay to the supervi- of the other fendant are not the stuff of which a sors. of sex made, discrimination can be serology section’s work was “totally course, probative evidence that Dr. different” from that lab, of the rest of the Stafford discriminated Mrs. Bruh- according plaintiff herself, and when is, wiler bеcause my opinion, sex Paulette Sutton first came to work in the virtually nonexistent. serology section, Ann Fowler told her “that convincing proof “most salaries our set according were pay [t]he against women,” man was the district scale in opposed Knoxville as actually
judge remarked, was his treatment of Ann being Memphis.” set in Dr. Stafford con- was, Fowler. Yet in plain- 1977—which firmed that University treated serolo- testified, tiff “the first time there had been gists differently; “they were treated as promotions” internal Stafford an- technologists —Dr. medical and their salaries nounced at a staff meeting that he was were on a scale which was tied or related making not promotion, one internal but to medical technologists’ salaries at other *6 promotions two. Both involved women. laboratories at the University.” If Dr. One of those women was Ann Fowler. Stafford lying this, was it should been a simple it; have matter yet to show Ms. put Fowler was charge in of the testimony his point on this stands unim- Forensic Serology laboratory, according to peached. Dr. Stafford’s plaintiff’s treatment of Ann testimony. Ms. Fowler’s succes- simply Fowler was not shown to have evi- sor Serologist as Sutton, Chief —Paulette disposition denced a to engage in sex dis- herself a woman—testified that Ms. Fowler crimination, my in view. was in charge 1979, still serology when Messrs. Phillips Nichols and were plaintiff the What herself felt was promoted comparable supervisory posi- unfair,” “grossly and what led her ulti- tions, and Ms. Sutton testified that Ms. mately to file an grievance administrative Fowler in charge remained serology un- Dr. were personnel the 1982, til when she contracted an illness that decisions grievance described ultimately was in her result death. Ms. as follows: Sutton took over Ms. supervisory Fowler’s early November, “In 1981, Dr. D.T. responsibilities unofficially and Ms. Stafford meeting announced at a Sutton formally promoted was to section Toxicology Laboratory that Mr. G.S. Fer- supervisor January (Five of 1984. or six nandez would be Supervisor Section months later Ms. Sutton received a retroac- Drug Screen Section. I am only pay increase, tive just as one or more of person other working in that section and the men had done being officially after I experience, have more more education promoted.) seniority and more than Mr. Fernandez. time,
At the time At that promotion I asked Ms. Stafford how appears Fowler could justify this move receiving and he told me salary higher than could do it by anyone that received because he wanted to. else in the laborаtory except Dr. Stafford On March year, of this I ascertained himself—and following year fiscal that A.M. Phillips, H.S. Nichols and Mr. (1978-79) Ms. Fowler was a salary officially Fernandez had designated he told her him about time, to Dr. tioned I went that At Supervisors. con- him if he had that and asked Supervisor. position me for the sidered I not why reason could primary "The were not. His reasons he had said He fact that her was the justify promoting that: along people, get with other she did not very many people effective I would be other not feel 1. He did get promot- not I I did that if had I was certain position because well. in the anyone, supervisory position would along with ed her to a immediately and have lost one individual position me this 2. He had offered they could of that others soon as it at two as declined I had 1977 and jobs.” found time.” conclusions, was Mrs. Bruhwiler findings undisputed In its written isIt job perform technically following rea- gave qualified the district court well received, un- it is (here the court’s quoted Fernandez without Mr. sons seniority than had more citations) concluding that she that Dr. disputed record Bruhwiler did Mrs. pretext did. Fernandez reason proffered Mr. was not well Fernandez that Mr. claim discrimination: for sex however, either of also, or qualified “First, employees of former three unqualifiеd. supervisors other male laboratory who worked at var- toxicology rather, as follows: testimony, Her testi- 1974 to all intervals from ious they competent men are “These with ability to work well fied of their than hard, no they are better but work of the male and each job. else anybody supervisors Mrs. testified know, train helped And, had them, tried to and in fact she helped train longer them, there I had been in some he was a raise when get one of them long there people had been other hired. first long.” equally as long or almost as testimony is not Second, Dr. Stafford’s toward fe- pro- his attitude require that does not credible because Title VII Al- seniority, overtly sexist. employees is the basis of male made on motions pro- however, require though testified *7 and it does peo- If sex. “other get along the basis of well with made on be could motions legitimate in 15 laboratory, a Exhibit articulate ple” the defendant can promoting as “Sallee non-discriminatory reason Bruhwiler Mrs. evaluates the preference having to to in less-senior male resent many the times seem female, may not defendant her atti- This affects more-senior with men. work plaintiff can sus- the con- unless To performance”. held liable tude and establishing that train the helped the burden of tain Bruhwiler trary, Mrs. pretext for discrimina- was a Mr. laboratory reason and neither stated men in the of her sex. her disinter- ting Vaughn, two nor Wiggins Mr. any prob- employees, had former ested Phil- of promotions Messrs. far as As proof The Bruhwiler. lems with Mrs. concerned, Dr. Staf- lips and Nichols are his fe- Dr. Stafford treated that shows on Bruhwiler was Mrs. testified that ford Be- discriminatorily. employees male the time of absence at year-long leave her of front cursing Mrs. Bruhwiler sides eligible pro- even was not thus Mrs. toward his actions employees, other finding made no court motion. Saharovici, toxicolo- a research Friderica prеtext for sex explanation Saharovi- Mrs. reprehensible. gist, were Fernandez, Span- As to discrimination. in 1972 began work at ci additional who assumed male ish-surnamed Memphis Romania. coming from after an “of- received responsibilities an gave Dr. Stafford July In 1981, after Mrs. July of promotion in ficial” asked unsatisfactory evaluation and lab, Dr. Stafford return to expía- university without leave the ques- Mrs. testified extremely Mrs. Saharovici tribute to her charity nation[J a measure of upset action, yet to, over this aspire Dr. Stafford few could much less achieve. why never told her this was done. plaintiff’s Three One of the own witnesses— months changed later her evaluation was Wiggins, part-time David who worked at satisfactory. the lab between and 1980—testified that Mrs. “mentioned
Finally, proof clearly supports [she and well_” get Dr. didn’t along that the Stafford] of the three Colson, ap- Associate Dean who employees male supervisor to section parently interviewed both Mrs. a ruse to increase their salaries. part and Dr. Fowler, adjudication Stafford as Mrs. whom Dr. Stafford testified grievance, administrative supervisor, com- was also a did not receive a mented to Mrs. Bruhwiler on “the spite commensurate obvious salary increase personal you tеnsion that exists within lengthy tenure in laboratory. you between culminating This was the Stafford.” insult to wom- laboratory, en in the as Dr. Stafford con- (a If judge male) the district had found discriminatory tinued his earlier actions.” working himself in a group small with Dr. If plausible light this account is one senses that there would have entirety, record viewed in its personal as this an “obvious court’s tension” be- quotation from Anderson v. tween City Bessemer the two them judge also. As the shows, we not reverse the district commented to defense counsel from the judgment court’s though bench, convinced weighed we would have the evidence Leadbetter, “Mr. you got a bunch differently had sitting wе as the trier protect dodos to Really, this. I Supreme fact. take the injunc- Court’s know, don’t understand. You you get course, tion seriously, of and I have read tough some ones. University every transcript word of the trial in this Tennessee, they have—that outfit— so, Having case. done I am say bound to they academia out are the worst there — that the district court’s stated reasons for personnel managers I have ever seen finding Mrs. Bruhwiler a victim of sex dis- my life. crimination, opposed being on the They really They are. are a bunch of wrong end of personality clash and a silly They children. they all are don’t—
victim of insensitivity managerial incom- ‘poppycock,’ know, proud gossip petence, do “plausible.” not strike me as and all have had stuff. several everyone these undisputed gets
It is cases and that from the time worse than the other.” started work in the laboratory in 1973 until at least partic- Bruhwiler did not If a male who considered Dr. Stafford a *8 ularly supervisors. care for her She said “dodo” passed had been over promotion so herself: “I particularly did not care for —and for all we know witness supervisors I every but made effort to Vaughn passed Edward pre- over for get along with alluding them.” After to cisely that hardly reason—it would have separation from her husband in Novem- constituted sex discrimination. For Dr. ber of she testified —with an obvious- pass Stafford to over a female whose own ly display sincere of emotion that cannot evidence get showed she “didn’t along have failed to sympathy evoke the of the well” him speak with not very does ofwell court—that “apparently I was difficult to greatness soul, Dr. Stafford’s perhaps, with, get along although it, I did not realize surely but promote to failure because nobody me, came and nobody told asked me a personality equate does not clash to dis- having if I was any problems. And I over- crimination sex. came it after awhile.” employees The three former who testi- suppose To plaintiff that the overcame fied as ability to their to work well with her dislike of Dr. experi- Stafford after her Mrs. probably Bruhwiler shared the latter’s ence as Toxicologist Chief would be to at- assessment supervision. of the lab’s Mrs. Dr. Stafford Sabatini, for leave “didn’t junior senior gist at him; Mr. fied), leave. great who were Bruhwiler nied; Mr. seems That and, Mrs. deal university. Mr. man’s undeniable. always see Unlike there the lab lab when Mr. Vaughn Phillips testified that like promoted did being promoted example, testified her, tension,” Mr. Fernandez was tension things,” and from eye-to-eyе obviously offered At Bruhwiler, he chose two male before did not Vaughn, least a different Mr. Fernandez between Vaughn it was to choose with (it caused resented she helped train supervisors during the 1982, was chose toxicolo- testi- Mrs. way sue. she job de- “a to A. “Q. A. DoQ. # tional lab at laboratory, change folks ter now way I think I is there smoother. think Sallee I think Now, think you [*] to the fact getting outbursts different since the whole we things are real than some think [*] probably kept has Ms. Bruhwiler along? atmosphere as other my times. things stirred [*] there been operation ten she has relates get reason? happened.” years there. peaceful. along left is a lot left, or far as [*] emo- up.” bet- any any ruling writ- supervisor court’s bench Mrs. Bruhwiler’s The district he was time well,” Mrs. no refer- make along findings “real and conclusions get ten they did testimony. the con- showing to no Sutton’s to Paulette made ence Bruhwiler remov- testified —after Mr. trary. Nichols attempting say, in the court did What request the court’s gum, at chewing ing his Dr. Stafford’s not find why he did explain “run- any didn’t have although he —that Dr. credible, was that testimony Bruhwiler, “conversation Mrs. ins” with is employees female toward “attitude diffi- kind of her sometimes with for this support sole overtly sexist.” cult_” he testified Phillips, Like Mr. in Ex- comment Dr. finding was Sutton’s better got along in the lab peoplе that the evaluation, about personnel a 1976 hibit left. Mrs. after hav- seeming “to resent Bruhwiler’s Mrs. men.” evaluation with ing to work Sutton testified Serologist Paulette Chief Mrs. antedated question report effect: same to the —which Toxicolo- to Chief as to opinion have “Q. Do assess- overall her an year gave gist by a have should not she — whether The observation “satisfactory.” ment of position? to that promoted with to work resenting have more probably Scott I think A. testified, stemmed men, as Mrs. qualified. her male su- complaint formal from as to any doubts you have Q. Do Dr. Sickels, filed with Wayne Dr. pervisor, should perhaps whether told after instead? promoted up the cleaning nobody was Sickels No sir. A. find if he couldn’t laboratory properly, Q. Why not? it do it, ought to to do else anyone incident, long before too liked Not like Sallee. himself. personally IA. had really I don’t included then, group now. I like her *9 complained temperment to Dr. Stafford gone had the [sic] think supervisor. as a inadequacies supervisor. very good Dr. Sickels’ to be fails to opinion court’s the district What any reason Well, do Q. gener- discussing Dr. mention, Stafford’s that? saying report on satisfactory evaluation ally always be Well, seemed there A. fired. got Bruhwiler, Dr. Sickels is that unhappi- of an undertone sort would Wayne Sickels what One wonders Sallee, unhappy with ness with Dr. Staf- finding that court’s think un- unhappy with job, Or “overtly sexist.” attitude ford’s people with various happy successor, Dr. Sickels’ male who was Finally, also the district court concluded that fired Dr. Stafford. Or Ms. Paulette of the three employees male Sutton, given highest who was evalua- was a “ruse” to increase their salaries. tion anyone 1982, But each the three males had previously year the same in which Sallee asked to work free,” i.e., “for to— got Frida Saharovici embroiled what work for some higher months job Ms. Sutton “very, very described as a categоry higher loud without pay just as Ms. — commotion” Fowler, that reduced Mrs. Saharovici Ms. Sutton and Mrs. Bruhwiler had to tears. been. Dr. may Stafford have had much to for, answer charge but the that he discrimi- The district deeply court was distressed nated Mrs. Bruhwiler because of at Dr. asking Mrs. Saharovici to simply her sex proven, was not my opin- university without, leave the as far as Mrs. ion. Based on the whole, record as a remember, Saharovici could explaining think the court’s of a statutory why. That distress be understanda- clearly violation was erroneous. ble, but the fact remains that neither Mrs. Saharovici anyone suggested nor else
she had been a victim sex discrimination.
Mrs. Saharovici testified that Dr. Stafford
never her in any way mistreated after Mrs. left, nor had he ever done so question.
before the incident In Novem-
ber of 1982—after Mrs. Sep-
tember 3 resignation signed —Dr. SPARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Gerald M. reading memorandum as follows: “I request that Mrs. Saharovici’s last v.
evaluation be changed from “less than CHARACTER AND FITNESS COMMIT- satisfactory” “satisfactory.” per- Her KENTUCKY, TEE al., OF et formance past over the several months Defendants-Appellees. ' improved has quite nicely, and arewe No. 85-5629. experiencing the kinds of instrument problems previously encountered. In ad- United States Appeals, Court of dition, her improved attitude has dramat- Sixth Circuit. ically early September. since Argued Aug. therefore 1988. request recommend and performance' rating changed Decided Oct. 1988. satisfactory and that her salary be ad- justed appropriately.”
More than years three later Mrs. Saharovi-
ci testified that she hadn’t had more
problems, had received no more bad evalua-
tions, had average pay increas-
es, Wayne and—unlike Dr. Sickels and his
male successor—she was still employed in
the laboratory. Mrs. Saharovici was asked
if atmosphere in the lab changed had left, but the court this;
sustained an objection ques-
tion—which I thought should have perti-
nent one—went unanswered. At least we
know that *10 there were no further “loud
commotions” between Mrs. Saharovici and
Mrs. Bruhwiler.