Sylvia Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transportation Department Roc Stacey
424 F.3d 1027, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19764, 62 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1340 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII, a plaintiff's claim can survive summary judgment if there is direct evidence that a discriminatory animus was a motivating factor in an adverse employment action. Further, a hostile work environment claim can survive summary judgment based on evidence of frequent, demeaning, gender-based comments, even if not all comments were directed at the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Beginning in 1994, Sylvia Dominguez-Curry worked for the Nevada Department of Transportation under the supervision of Roc Stacey.
- Stacey frequently made derogatory comments about women in the workplace, stating that he wished men did their jobs, that women have no business in construction, and that women should only be in subservient positions.
- Stacey regularly told sexually explicit jokes, which Dominguez-Curry described as an "everyday" occurrence.
- Stacey expressed hostility towards pregnant employees and women with children, once referring to a newly hired pregnant woman as a "bitch."
- Prior to an opening for a Program Officer III position, Stacey told Dominguez-Curry he was "going to hire a guy" for the role.
- Stacey told Dominguez-Curry's husband that he would never give Dominguez-Curry the job because she was a "small female" and he feared for her safety on job sites.
- In November 1999, Dominguez-Curry applied for the open Program Officer III position.
- Stacey, along with another manager, Mark Elicegui, interviewed candidates and hired a male applicant, Phillip Andrews.
Procedural Posture:
- Sylvia Dominguez-Curry exhausted her administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- Dominguez-Curry filed a complaint against the Nevada Department of Transportation and Roc Stacey in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging Title VII violations.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding the evidence of a hostile work environment insufficient and concluding Dominguez-Curry failed to show the reason for not promoting her was pretextual.
- Dominguez-Curry, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 a plaintiff present a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on Title VII claims for a hostile work environment and failure to promote, based on evidence of her supervisor's frequent derogatory comments about women and his stated intention to hire a man for the position?
Opinions:
Majority - Paez, J.
Yes. A reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment and that the decision not to promote her was motivated at least in part by her gender. The district court erred in granting summary judgment because it improperly weighed evidence, made credibility determinations, and disregarded direct evidence of discriminatory animus. For the hostile work environment claim, the court ignored testimony that Stacey's derogatory comments and sexually explicit jokes were frequent, not merely 'isolated incidents.' For the failure-to-promote claim, the court incorrectly required 'specific and substantial' evidence of pretext, a standard that does not apply to direct evidence of discrimination. Stacey's comments—such as stating he was 'going to hire a guy' for the position and that women should be in 'subservient positions'—constitute direct evidence that gender was a motivating factor in the hiring decision, which is sufficient to create a triable issue for a jury, even if the hired candidate was also qualified.
Dissenting - Callahan, J.
No, as to the failure-to-promote claim. While the hostile work environment claim should proceed to trial, summary judgment was proper on the failure-to-promote claim because the employer offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason that the plaintiff failed to rebut. The undisputed evidence shows that the hired candidate, Phillip Andrews, was the best-qualified applicant based on his superior education and experience. Where the justification for a hiring decision is that the most qualified applicant was selected, an alleged illicit motive by one decision-maker cannot be considered a 'motivating factor' in the employment decision because the same outcome would have been reached regardless of any bias. Therefore, the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue that her gender played a causal role in the decision.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that direct evidence of a decision-maker's discriminatory animus is a powerful tool for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in Title VII cases. The court clarifies that even a single discriminatory comment can be sufficient and that the heightened 'specific and substantial' evidence standard does not apply to direct evidence. The ruling also solidifies the 'mixed-motive' framework, under which an employer can be liable if discrimination was one of several motivating factors, even if a legitimate reason for the decision also existed. This holding serves as a strong caution to district courts against weighing evidence or making credibility findings at the summary judgment stage, preserving those functions for the jury.
