Turner v. Barber-Scotia College

604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina 1985-03-12

civil; bench trial, findings of fact and conclusions of law; two white professors v. predominantly black college (Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981 discharge claims, plus 2000e-3 retaliation) (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 1 Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization satisfied proved
    Defendant Barber-Scotia College (BSC) is an institution of higher learning and is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  2. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied law
    BSC is a predominantly black private school located in Concord, North Carolina, and is owned by the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.
  3. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied law
    3. Plaintiff Albert Turner is a white male who is currently a resident of Houston, Texas. Turner was employed on the faculty of BSC from August 20, 1973, until May 1, 1981.
  4. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied law
    4. Plaintiff Robert Goetzman is a white male who is currently a resident of St. Louis, Missouri. Goetzman was employed on the faculty of BSC from August 30, 1973, until May 1, 1981.
  5. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied law
    Analyzing the proof in the subject case according to this scheme, plaintiffs fall within a protected racial class.
  6. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations not proved
    Although both were clearly well qualified for the job, a question arises whether near the end of their tenures (used in the nontechnical sense of the word) at BSC, Turner and Goetzman were performing satisfactorily according to the legitimate expectations of BSC.
  7. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations not proved
    For years Turner and Goetzman were two of the top professors at BSC. Their credentials relative to the other faculty members were outstanding, and they earned the respect and admiration of students, faculty, and administration.
  8. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations not proved
    Because of these and other tensions between administration and faculty, Turner and Goetzman became deeply involved in attempts to unionize the BSC faculty. The attempt failed, and thereafter relations between the two professors and the administration were strained.
  9. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations not proved
    At trial BSC failed to prove by objective evidence that these criticisms were well founded. However, at least as concerned President McLean, the conviction that Turner and Goetzman were not fulfilling their proper roles in the BSC community was sincere, even if highly subjective.
  10. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations not proved
    In determining whether Turner and Goetzman were satisfying BSC’s legitimate expectations, the Court is constrained to give great credence to President McLean’s articulation of what those expectations are.
  11. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations not proved
    It is clear that after the contract and labor disputes of 1978-1979, Turner and Goetzman became aloof from that community and diverted from that goal.
  12. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations not proved
    Thus, the Court is unable to conclude that, at the time they were fired, Turner and Goetzman were fulfilling the legitimate expectations of BSC, and is unable to infer from the evidence that race was a determining factor in the decision to discharge them.
  13. 4 Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status satisfied conceded
    18. Less than one week later, on May 1, 1981, Turner received notice that he would not be rehired.
  14. 4 Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status satisfied conceded
    32. On May 1,1981, Goetzman was notified that he would not be rehired.
  15. 5 Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) not proved
    Buggs is less qualified than Turner, having only an M.S. degree, but she worked for only $11,800.00; Turner had earned $17,000.00 his last year at BSC, and claims that with salary increments he would have earned $19,000.00 had he been rehired. Buggs is black.
  16. 5 Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) not proved
    Although the percentage of white faculty members was smaller, it should be noted that two new whites were hired after Turner and Goetzman were fired.
  17. 5 Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) not proved
    The administration saw the efforts of Turner and Goetzman as disruptive and counterproductive; they were making waves in already troubled waters.
  18. 5 Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) not proved
    It is for the Court to determine whether the wedge driven between the two white professors and the predominantly black school was one of racial animus. The Court concludes that it was not.
  19. 5 Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) not proved
    If certain other faculty members were treated differently, if some received extra assignments and as a corollary slightly more pay, it was due to their being more philosophically aligned with the administration.
  20. 5 Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) not proved
    Therefore, it is concluded that plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
  21. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not proved
    13. On October 21, 1980, Turner filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that he had been discriminated against in terms of salary and other conditions of employment because of his race.
  22. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not proved
    39. The senior administrators at BSC were aware that Turner and Goetzman had filed charges with the EEOC before Turner and Goetzman were discharged.
  23. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not proved
    Although the firings followed closely on the heels of the bringing of charges, plaintiffs have failed to prove a causal connection.
  24. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not proved
    Goetzman’s problems with requisitions and departmental assignment were a result of poor communication among the BSC administration and possibly personal animus, but not retaliation for earlier charges.
  25. 11 Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) not proved
    The EEOC charges came in the midst of a larger and more profound controversy, and though they may have added to the growing sense that Turner and Goetzman were troublemakers and not to be trusted, plaintiffs failed to prove that the filing of the charges was the cause of the school’s actions.