Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Boeing Co.
577 F.3d 1044, 92 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,652, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18424 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Direct evidence of a supervisor's discriminatory animus, or specific and substantial circumstantial evidence that an employer's proffered reason for an adverse employment action is unworthy of credence, is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and defeat a motion for summary judgment in a Title VII case.
Facts:
- Antonia Castrón worked for Boeing under department manager Bill Charlton, who a coworker testified frequently made derogatory comments about women, such as they "were not worth a shit" and should be "at home, not working."
- After Castrón complained about a hostile work environment from her male coworkers, Charlton refused her request to transfer to the Final Assembly workgroup but later transferred her to the Structures-Mod department, a role requiring substantially different skills.
- Castrón expressed fear that the transfer would make her vulnerable in an upcoming Reduction-in-Force (RIF), but accepted it only after Charlton assured her that she would not be affected by the RIF.
- Two months after her transfer, Castrón's new supervisor, Rick Hobby, gave her low RIF scores based solely on her brief time as a trainee in the new department, ignoring her prior years of performance.
- As a direct result of these low scores, Boeing terminated Castrón.
- Renee Wrede, the only female manufacturing engineer in her skill code, received scores high enough to avoid termination in two RIFs in early 2002.
- In a third RIF in October 2002, Wrede’s supervisor, Bruce Wright, gave her significantly lower scores than before, including a score of '0' for skills in which she had previously documented experience.
- Wrede was terminated, while all six of her male colleagues who also received low RIF scores avoided termination by transferring or having their notices cancelled, sometimes with the assistance of management.
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against The Boeing Company in the U.S. District Court, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII on behalf of Antonia Castrón and Renee Wrede.
- Boeing moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted Boeing's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
- The EEOC, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Boeing is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the EEOC present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that an employer's stated reason for termination—low scores on a reduction-in-force assessment—is a pretext for sex discrimination and retaliation, where the evidence includes a supervisor's history of derogatory comments about women, inconsistent evaluation practices, and more favorable treatment of similarly situated male employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Hawkins, Circuit Judge
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Boeing's proffered reasons for terminating the employees were pretextual. For Castrón, direct evidence of her supervisor's discriminatory animus (Charlton's sexist comments), combined with circumstantial evidence like transferring her to a position where she was vulnerable after she complained, was sufficient to infer pretext for both discrimination and retaliation. For Wrede, the EEOC presented 'specific and substantial' circumstantial evidence of pretext, including the sudden and unexplained drop in her RIF scores, testimony from coworkers and other managers praising her performance, and the fact that every similarly situated male employee avoided termination while she, the only woman in her group, was laid off. The court found this evidence was enough for a reasonable jury to conclude that Boeing's reliance on the low RIF scores was unworthy of credence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the evidentiary standard for surviving summary judgment in Title VII pretext claims. The court's holding reinforces that direct evidence of a manager's general discriminatory bias, even if not aimed at the plaintiff specifically, is highly probative of pretext. Critically, the court explicitly adopts the view that positive assessments from coworkers and other managers are 'clearly probative of pretext,' providing plaintiffs with a powerful tool to challenge the credibility of an employer's official, subjective evaluations. This decision makes it more difficult for employers to secure summary judgment by relying solely on negative performance reviews when there is contradictory evidence suggesting discriminatory motives.
