Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth.

384 F. Supp. 3d 199 (2019) United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts 2019-06-17

civil; Title VII race discrimination (failure to promote) and retaliation (denied overtime "podium duty"); transit authority's motion for summary judgment allowed on both counts (D. Mass.) (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 1 Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization satisfied conceded
    He has continued as a laborer foreman at the MBTA to this day.
  2. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied conceded
    Henderson, a black male, began working at the MBTA in 1991 as a construction laborer.
  3. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied conceded
    There is no question he satisfies the first and third elements of the prima facie case: he is a member of a protected class because of his race, he applied for and did not receive the supervisor position, and two white applicants received the job instead.
  4. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations satisfied triable
    From 2000 to 2005, he served as a temporary supervisor.
  5. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations satisfied triable
    Here, Melchionda got an 8 (out of 10) and Henderson got a 4, which made sense because Henderson provided fewer specifics.
  6. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations satisfied triable
    A review of the answers to this question does not reveal an objective basis for scoring Melchionda an 8 and Henderson a 5.
  7. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations satisfied triable
    After examining Melchionda's, Higgins's, and Henderson's answers, the Court cannot say that Henderson's score was based on objective criteria that would demonstrate he was not qualified for the job or similarly qualified to the successful candidates.
  8. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations satisfied triable
    Henderson's low score in the interview therefore does not defeat his prima facie case.
  9. 4 Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status satisfied conceded
    Higgins, who is white, received the highest scores of all the candidates, with a 94 from Martin and a 93 from Emde.
  10. 4 Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status satisfied conceded
    Henderson was informed he did not get the job on February 28.
  11. 6 Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) satisfied conceded
    Henderson received the second-lowest score of the twenty candidates with a 61 and 56.
  12. 6 Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) satisfied conceded
    Ultimately, because Higgins and Melchionda received the highest scores in the interview, the selection committee recommended hiring them in mid-January 2013.
  13. 6 Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) satisfied conceded
    This nondiscriminatory justification satisfies the MBTA's burden of production.
  14. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence
    He left the computer skills section of his application blank.
  15. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence
    For another question dealing with computer experience, though, the committee's notes reflect that Henderson had more computer experience than Melchionda (who described his computer skills as "minimal"), yet Henderson received three points lower.
  16. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence
    While Melchionda had worse computer skills, the undisputed evidence is that he had more experience supervising larger teams than Henderson and interviewed better.
  17. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence
    An employer may properly rely on interview performance in making promotion decisions.
  18. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence
    Even though the scoring of the answers appears subjective in some areas, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find racial discrimination.
  19. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence
    Henderson also provides no evidence that the committee ever discussed or considered his race.
  20. 7 Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) not no-evidence
    Accordingly, the MBTA is entitled to summary judgment on Count I.
  21. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    On October 12, while HR was reviewing applications for the supervisor position, another laborer foreperson was assigned to "podium duty" instead of Henderson.
  22. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    Even if it did, Henderson testified that it occurred in February 2013, five months after Gilcoine denied him podium duty in October 2012.
  23. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    "Causation moves forward, not backwards, and no protected conduct after an adverse employment action can serve as the predicate for a retaliation claim."
  24. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    This theory also fails to satisfy the causation element of the prima facie case.
  25. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not no-evidence
    There is no evidence Gilcoine or the union stewards responsible for assigning podium duty knew about Henderson's complaint.