Swanson v. General Services Administration
110 F.3d 1180 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To defeat a motion for judgment as a matter of law in a Title VII case where the employer has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions, the plaintiff must present competent evidence that the employer's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Evidence of a hostile working relationship or an employee's subjective belief of discrimination is insufficient without evidence that controverts the employer's stated reason or otherwise demonstrates a discriminatory motive.
Facts:
- Tommy L. Swanson, a black employee of the General Services Administration (GSA), accepted a transfer to a Supervisory Building Management Specialist position in New Orleans in 1988, which he believed was a "branch chief" role.
- Unbeknownst to Swanson and his supervisor, Glenn Moore, the GSA had administratively eliminated the "branch chief" designation for the position before Swanson's arrival, a fact officially confirmed in a December 1989 inspection.
- Over the next few years, Swanson's supervisory responsibilities diminished due to organizational changes, including the transfer of personnel and a national-level decision to remove the security program from his department's oversight.
- Following the change in his status and a deteriorating relationship with Moore, Swanson filed his first EEO complaint alleging racial discrimination in June 1990, followed by three subsequent complaints.
- Swanson was disciplined on several occasions, including a one-day suspension for using a GSA account for personal postage and a five-day suspension for secretly tape-recording a phone call with supervisors.
- In early 1990, Moore implemented a sign-out board for Swanson and his staff, and Swanson received a performance rating of "fully satisfactory," which was lower than his previous rating.
- In May 1992, as part of a major reorganization that downgraded the entire New Orleans office, Swanson was involuntarily reassigned to a non-supervisory position in Fort Worth at the same pay grade.
Procedural Posture:
- Tommy L. Swanson filed suit against the General Services Administration (GSA) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
- The case was tried before a magistrate judge (for claims arising before Nov. 21, 1991) and a jury (for claims arising after that date).
- The magistrate judge found in favor of GSA on all claims within his purview.
- The jury found in favor of Swanson on four claims of discrimination and retaliation, awarding him $120,000 in compensatory damages.
- The district court entered judgment upon the jury's verdict.
- The district court denied post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law filed by both GSA and Swanson.
- GSA, as appellant, appealed the denial of its motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Swanson, as cross-appellant, appealed the judge's findings and the amount of damages.
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 an employee's evidence, consisting primarily of a hostile work environment and conclusory allegations of disparate treatment, provide a sufficient basis for a jury to find that an employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its adverse employment actions were a pretext for racial discrimination or retaliation under Title VII?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge E. Grady Jolly
No. An employee's evidence is insufficient to support a jury verdict under Title VII if it demonstrates at most a hostile working relationship but fails to provide competent evidence showing the employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. Once an employer articulates a legitimate reason for its action, the inference of discrimination from the plaintiff's prima facie case disappears, and the plaintiff must offer evidence that either disproves the employer's explanation or otherwise shows that discrimination was the real motive. In this case, GSA provided specific, non-discriminatory business reasons for each adverse action—including office-wide reorganizations, application of neutral ranking systems for perks like parking, and responses to Swanson's own conduct. Swanson failed to produce evidence to refute these explanations, relying instead on conclusory allegations of being 'watched' and the subjective opinions of other employees, which are not competent evidence of pretext.
Dissenting in part - Judge Dennis
Yes, in part. There was substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer's explanations for several actions were not worthy of belief and that the employee was the victim of intentional discrimination. While the directed reassignment to Fort Worth was supported by a legitimate reason, there was conflicting evidence on other claims. For example, testimony suggested that black employees were monitored for tardiness more closely than white employees, that surveillance of Swanson began immediately after he filed his first EEO complaint, and that less senior white employees were given parking spaces. This evidence creates a 'conflict in substantial evidence' sufficient for a jury question, and the majority improperly reweighed the evidence rather than viewing it in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the burden on Title VII plaintiffs to prove pretext after an employer offers a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. It clarifies that a plaintiff cannot survive judgment as a matter of law simply by relying on the prima facie case, evidence of a poor working relationship, or conclusory testimony from themselves or others. The Fifth Circuit's decision requires plaintiffs to produce concrete, objective evidence that specifically undermines the employer's stated rationale, thereby making it more difficult for claims based largely on subjective perceptions of unfairness to proceed to or be sustained by a jury. The ruling underscores that federal courts should not act as 'super-personnel departments' and that Title VII does not protect employees from all unpleasantness or even unfairness at work, only from discrimination based on a protected characteristic.
