Wrenn v. Gould
808 F.2d 493 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer can defeat the claim by articulating legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decision. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reasons are merely a pretext for unlawful retaliation.
Facts:
- In 1981, the Neighborhood Health Association of Toledo, Inc. (the Center) advertised for an executive director, listing a master's degree and five years' management experience as required qualifications.
- Curtis L. Wrenn applied for the position; he possessed a relevant master's degree but lacked the five years of progressive management experience.
- During his interview, Wrenn voluntarily disclosed that he was actively litigating a civil rights claim against a former employer, the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Retardation.
- The interview committee questioned Wrenn for five to ten minutes about whether his ongoing lawsuit against the state would impede his ability to secure state funding for the Center.
- The Center first offered the position to two other candidates, Vanu Bagchi and another man, both of whom declined the offer.
- The Center then hired its third choice, Barbara L. Hill, who was serving as the acting executive director, had strong internal support from staff, and received glowing recommendations.
- Shortly after hiring Hill, the Center discovered she had misrepresented her educational credentials on her resume and subsequently terminated her employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis L. Wrenn filed suit against the Neighborhood Health Association of Toledo, Inc. (the Center) and its president in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- Wrenn's complaint included claims for retaliation under Title VII, as well as claims under Title VI and for race and age discrimination.
- Wrenn voluntarily dismissed his age discrimination, race discrimination, and Title VI claims during the course of the proceedings.
- Wrenn also consented to the dismissal of all claims against the individual defendant, Sylvester Gould.
- Following a bench trial on the sole remaining Title VII retaliation claim, the district court entered judgment for the Center, finding Wrenn failed to prove the Center's reasons for its hiring decision were pretextual.
- The district court denied the Center's motion for attorney fees.
- Wrenn, as appellant, appealed the judgment against him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the Center, as appellee, cross-appealed the denial of its attorney fees.
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 employer violate Title VII's anti-retaliation provision by declining to hire an applicant who has previously filed a discrimination lawsuit, when the employer articulates legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring another candidate, and the applicant fails to prove those reasons are pretextual?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, J.
No. An employer does not violate Title VII when it provides legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision, and the plaintiff fails to prove those reasons were pretext for retaliation. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Although Wrenn established a prima facie case of retaliation, the Center successfully rebutted it by articulating several legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring Barbara L. Hill. These reasons included her experience as acting director, strong recommendations, overwhelming support from the staff which would boost morale, the continuity she provided for ongoing projects, and her positive relationships with funding officials. The ultimate burden of persuasion remained with Wrenn to demonstrate that these reasons were pretextual, which he failed to do. An employer is free to choose among qualified candidates, and the court will not second-guess its business judgment, even if poor, as long as the motivation is not discriminatory. The fact that Hill was later discovered to be unqualified does not prove the Center's initial reasons for hiring her were a pretext for retaliating against Wrenn.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar a plaintiff faces in proving pretext under the McDonnell Douglas framework for Title VII retaliation claims. It clarifies that an employer's articulation of legitimate business reasons, even if those reasons are based on subjective factors like morale or continuity, can successfully rebut a prima facie case of retaliation. The decision underscores that Title VII protects against discriminatory animus, not poor business judgment, granting employers significant latitude in hiring decisions. Future plaintiffs are put on notice that merely establishing a prima facie case is insufficient; they must produce concrete evidence showing the employer's stated reasons are a factual sham designed to hide a retaliatory motive.
Unlock the full brief for Wrenn v. Gould