Title VII Reverse Race Discrimination Claim Fails In Face Of Fire Chief's Honest Belief That Plaintiffs Were Ill-Suited For Promotion
STOCKWELL v. CITY OF HARVEY (March 12, 2010)
Jason Bell, Harvey's fire chief, decided to hire a Deputy Chief and three Assistant Chiefs. Chief Bell wrote down traits that he considered desirable (competence, loyalty, dedication, and confidence) and unacceptable (selfishness, complaining, dishonesty, and undermining authority). Anyone with ten years of service on the Fire Department could apply and a sign-up sheet was posted. Nine members of the department indicated an interest in the Assistant Chief position -- eight of the nine also indicated an interest in the Deputy Chief position. Three of the nine were African-American (Buie, Tyler, and Patterson). Before any interviews, Chief Bell offered the Deputy Chief position to a white fireman who had not applied - he declined. Each of the nine candidates was then interviewed and evaluated in several categories. Chief Bell ranked the candidates based on several factors, including the interview evaluation scores. The three African-Americans all scored in the top four. The fourth candidate withdrew his name from consideration. The African-Americans all received promotions. The next highest scorer was Rich Stockwell. Chief Bell did not offer Stockwell a promotion, based on his belief that Stockwell was nearing retirement. The fourth promotion was given to a white candidate who had not applied for the position. Rich Stockwell and three other white firemen brought an action under Title VII against the City of Harvey for race discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. The firemen appeal.
In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Williams, and Tinder affirmed. The Court described the prima facie case and burden shifting analyses under the McDonnell Douglas indirect method of proof. It then proceeded to decide the case under the pretext requirement, assuming a prima facie case. In order to prevail, the Court stated, a plaintiff must establish that the non-discriminatory reason given by an employer was dishonest and that the real reason reflected a discriminatory intent. Even an unreasonable decision is not actionable if the decision-maker believed it. The Court reviewed the record with respect to each plaintiff and found legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons not to promote each: a) Bell testified that DeYoung had a reputation for being negative and Chief Bell had a belief that he might undermine management, b) Bell testified that he thought Ciecierski was dishonest and not trustworthy, c) Bell testified that Gary Stockwell did a lot of complaining and would not support the department, and d) Bell testified that he believed that Rich Stockwell was nearing retirement and not committed to the department for a long term. In light of Chief Bell's testimony, the Court concluded that none of the plaintiffs could establish a genuine issue of fact with respect to pretext.
