TYLER v. Muscogee County School District

Filing 37

ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary JudgmentOrdered by U.S. District Judge CLAY D LAND on 07/02/14 (bsh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
EDWARD M. TYLER,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

*

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-96 (CDL)
*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Plaintiff,

who

is

a

white

male

bus

driver

for

the

Defendant, was passed over for two promotions which were awarded
to a black female and a white female.
race

and

gender

decisions,

and

he

were

motivating

brings

this

Plaintiff contends that

factors

action

in

the

against

promotion

his

employer

pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”),

42

U.S.C.

(“§ 1981”).1
No. 15).

§

2000e

et

seq.,

and

42

U.S.C.

§ 1981

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF

Because Plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient

evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that
Defendant’s stated legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its

Plaintiff also asserted age discrimination
Complaint, but he has abandoned those claims.
Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 27, ECF No. 29.
1

1

claims in his
Pl.’s Resp. to

decisions were pretext for unlawful discrimination, Defendant’s
motion is granted.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment may be granted only “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Civ. P. 56(a).

In determining whether a

genuine

Fed. R.

dispute of

material fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment,
the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party
opposing summary judgment, drawing all justifiable inferences in
the opposing party’s favor.
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
A fact is material if it is relevant

or necessary to the outcome of the suit.

Id. at 248.

A factual

dispute is genuine if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury
to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.

Id.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Construing the factual record in favor of Plaintiff, the
facts for purposes of summary judgment are as follows.
Plaintiff

(“Mr.

Tyler”),

a

white

male

employee

of

the

Defendant (“the School District”), has been a School District
bus driver since 1976.

He has an impeccable driving record with

no accidents during his thirty-eight year tenure.

Before the

State of Georgia required that bus “trainers” be certified, Mr.
Tyler trained other School District drivers.
2

He has a bachelor

degree in business management from Trinity College, an online
institution.

In January 2012 and October 2012, he applied for

two positions which would have been promotions from his present
position

of

Zone

Five

Special

Education

Route

driver.

The

School District chose a black female employee and a white female
employee for these positions.

Mr. Tyler believes that he was

denied the promotions because he is a white male.
The School District contends that the application process
focused solely on legitimate qualifications and the two persons
who received the promotions were the best qualified for the
positions

regardless

of

their

race

or

gender.

To

evaluate

candidates for promotion, the School District appoints a panel
that interviews the candidates.
written

evaluation

form

which

The panel then completes a
includes

assigning

points

in

various categories relating to the job duties for the position.
Although the total number of points is a factor to be considered
in the final recommendation, points alone are not dispositive of
the panel’s decision.
the

totality

of

the

The panel makes a recommendation based on
circumstances

to

the

Transportation

Director, who affirms the recommendation or “kicks [it] back for
further

review.”

Tessin

Dep.

28:1-4,

ECF

No.

13.

If

the

Transportation Director affirms the panel’s recommendation, the
Director forwards the recommendation to the School District’s
Chief Operations Officer, the Human Resources Department, and
3

the Superintendent for review.

The recommendation is then made

to the School Board for final approval.
I.

January 2012 Zone Relief/Driver Position
In January 2012, Mr. Tyler interviewed for a Zone Relief/

Driver position, which would have been a promotion for him.
Although

five

separate

zone

relief/driver

positions

were

available, Mr. Tyler sought the single available position for
the special needs zone.

Job duties for the position included

covering routes, handling complaints from parents, counseling
drivers, and assisting in evaluations.

The minimum requirements

to apply for the position were a high school diploma or GED,
eight

years

of

regular

driving

commercial driver’s license.

experience,

and

a

valid

Seniority with the School District

was not a stated factor for the position.
The interview panel consisted of three white males, one
black female, and one black male.
questions

during

the

They asked only job-related

interviews.

The

panel

unanimously

recommended one white male, one white female, two black males,
and one black female to fill the five open positions.
special

needs

zone

position

sought

by

Mr.

recommended Debra Lewis, a white female.

Tyler,

For the

the

panel

Ms. Lewis met the

minimum requirements, had been a driver for the School District
since 2001, and was a certified driving trainer.
District ultimately approved these recommendations.
4

The School

II.

October 2012 Transportation Specialist Position
In October 2012, Mr. Tyler interviewed for a Transportation

Specialist position.
“ensur[ing]

the

transportation

The job duties for this position included

overall

operation

coverage

required

scheduling

to
and

evaluating,

to

incidents,

and/or

recommending

solutions

complaints

and/or

accidents.”

Job

Specialist

qualifications

for

1,

applying

ECF
for

the

demands,

resolving,

Transportation

meet

No.

this

Description

16-1.

The

position

were

for

minimum
a

valid

driver’s license, a high school diploma or GED, and job-related
experience.
The
white

A bachelor degree was preferred.

interview

female

and

panel
two

for

black

this

position

males.

The

consisted
panel

of

one

unanimously

recommended Donna Lamar, a black female, for the position.

Ms.

Lamar met the minimum requirements and was certified to train
drivers.

She had previously worked for the School District and

was rehired in 2002.
zone

relief

driver

In January 2012, she was promoted to a
position.

She

did

not

have

a

bachelor

degree.
DISCUSSION
Title

VII

“discriminate

makes

against

it
any

unlawful
individual

compensation, terms, conditions, or

for
with

an

employer

respect

privileges

to

to
his

of employment,

because of such individual’s race [or] sex.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5

2(a)(1).

Mr. Tyler claims that he was denied the promotions to

zone relief/driver in January 2012 and transportation specialist
in October 2012 because of his race and/or gender.

Since he has

failed to point to any direct evidence of discrimination, the
Court

evaluates

his

claims

under

the

familiar

framework

established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973) and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248 (1981).

Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d

763, 767-68 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).2
Mr.

Tyler

must

first

Vessels, 408 F.3d at 767.

establish

a

prima

facie

If he does so, then

case.

the School

District may articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason
for its employment decisions.

Id.

If the School District meets

that burden, Mr. Tyler must establish that the proffered reason
was merely pretext for discrimination.
summary

judgment

stage,

Mr.

Tyler

may

Id. at 768.
carry

that

At the

burden

by

demonstrating that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that
the

School

District’s

stated

reasons

for

its

actions

were

pretextual.

The Title VII and § 1981 race discrimination claims asserted by
Mr. Tyler are “subject to the same standards of proof and employ
the same analytical framework.” Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281,
1296 n.20 (11th Cir. 2009).
2

6

I.

January 2012 Promotion Decision
A.

Prima Facie Case

To establish a prima facie case, Mr. Tyler must show “(1)
that [he] belongs to a protected class; (2) that [he] applied
for

and

was

rejected
equally

qualified

despite
or

promoted.”

for

[his]

a

promotion;

qualifications;

less-qualified

employees

(3)
and

outside

that
(4)

[he]

that

[his]

class

was

other
were

Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1174

(11th Cir. 2010).

For purposes of summary judgment, the Court

finds that Mr. Tyler has established a prima facie case.

The

evidence construed in his favor demonstrates that he is male,
that he met the minimum qualifications for the position, and
that

the

person

who

was

chosen

over

him

for

the

specific

position that he sought was a female.
B.

Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason

The School District states that it chose Ms. Lewis over Mr.
Tyler because it determined that she was better qualified for
the

position

based

on

its

non-discriminatory

hiring

process.

She certainly met the minimum requirements, having a GED and the
required driving experience.

And the panel scored her higher

overall

Moreover,

than

considered
employees.

her

Mr.
to

Tyler.
be

better

qualified

the
for

interview

panel

supervising

other

Tessin Dep. 95:22-96:15 (“[Mr. Tyler]’s just not

thought to be strong material to be supervising other human
7

beings.”).

The

articulating

a

School

District

legitimate

has

carried

non-discriminatory

its

burden

of

reason

for

not

promoting Mr. Tyler, which shifts the burden to Mr. Tyler to
show that the School District’s stated reason is pretextual.
C.

Pretext

To show pretext, Mr. Tyler may reveal “such weaknesses,
implausibilities,

inconsistencies,

incoherencies

or

contradictions in [the School District’s] proffered legitimate
reasons for its actions that a reasonable factfinder could find
them

unworthy

of

credence.”

Springer

v.

Convergys

Customer

Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 509 F.3d 1344, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, “[i]n the

context of a promotion, a plaintiff cannot prove pretext by
simply arguing or even by showing that he was better qualified
than the [person] who received the position . . . . A plaintiff
must show not merely that the defendant’s employment decisions
were mistaken but that they were in fact motivated by [gender].”
Id. at 1349 (first alteration in original) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

To

show

pretext

based

on

a

disparity

in

qualifications, Mr. Tyler must demonstrate that the disparities
between Ms. Lewis’s qualifications and his own were “of such
weight

and

significance

that

no

reasonable

person,

in

the

exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen” Ms. Lewis
over Mr. Tyler.

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
8

Mr. Tyler has not pointed to sufficient evidence from which
a

reasonable

factfinder

could

conclude

that

the

School

District’s stated reason for not promoting him was a pretext for
gender

discrimination.

Both

candidates

met

qualifications to interview for the position.

the

minimum

In addition, Ms.

Lewis was certified as a driver trainer; Mr. Tyler was not.
Although Mr. Tyler had more seniority with the School District,
the School District’s decision not to consider seniority is not
evidence of gender discrimination.

It is clear that there is

not sufficient disparity in the qualifications of Mr. Tyler and
Ms. Lewis to justify any inference that the stated reason for
the School District’s decision was pretextual.
Mr.

Tyler

does

point

to

an

alleged

statement

by

Frank

Brown, the School District’s Transportation Director, that he
“encouraged

black

women

and

women

in

general

to

management” positions at a meeting in December 2011.
45:23-25, ECF No. 11.

apply

Tyler Dep.

But that is the only fact that makes him

believe he was treated differently because of his gender.
Dep. 47:3-7.

for

Tyler

And that is simply not enough to establish that

the School District’s stated reasons for hiring someone other
than

Mr.

Tyler

are

false

or

decision to select Ms. Lewis.

that

gender

bias

motivated

its

The School District is entitled

to summary judgment on Mr. Tyler’s gender discrimination claim
relating to the special needs zone relief/driver position.
9

II.

October 2012 Promotion Decision
A.

Prima Facie Case

Mr. Tyler, a white male, met the minimum qualifications for
the Transportation Specialist position.
female, was chosen for the position.

Donna Lamar, a black
For purposes of summary

judgment, the Court finds that Mr. Tyler has established a prima
facie case of race and gender discrimination.
B.

Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reason

The School District claims that it chose Ms. Lamar because
she was “the best qualified individual for the position.”
Dep. 45:16-17, ECF No. 12.

Brown

According to the School District,

she was best qualified “in demonstration, her performance, her
communication among the drivers, the operation, the parents, the
exchange

between

the

schools.”

Brown

Dep.

45:21-23.

The

interview panel felt that “Donna Lamar’s relations with others,
how she connects with people, how she interacts with others was
more fitting to what was needed for a transportation specialist.
That was the deciding factor, neutral of her gender, neutral of
her race.”

Tessin Dep. 104:7-15.

“[S]he keeps her calm more

[than Mr. Tyler] in intense conflict kind of situations, [] she
calms parents down better, [] she thinks through things more
calmly in the last few years and that was the deciding factor.”
Tessin

Dep.

104:24-105:4.

These

are

legitimate

non-

discriminatory reasons for selecting Ms. Lamar over Mr. Tyler,
10

and thus the School District has satisfied its burden, shifting
the burden back to Mr. Tyler to show pretext.
C.

Pretext

Mr. Tyler has failed to point to evidence from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that the School District’s stated
reasons for selecting Ms. Lamar were false and that it instead
was motivated by race or gender.
School

District’s

decision

Mr. Tyler quarrels with the

because

Ms.

Lamar’s

supervisor, Frank Brown, was on the interview panel.

direct
Even if

Mr. Brown’s relationship demonstrated personal bias, it does not
support a finding of gender or race-based bias.

Moreover, such

speculation about personal bias does not sufficiently cast doubt
on the School District’s stated legitimate reasons to support a
finding

that

those

discrimination.
interpersonal

reasons

Mr.

skills

Tyler
were

were
also

not

pretext

argues

better

than

for

that
his

unlawful

Ms.

Lamar’s

because

Kathy

Tessin, a member of the interview panel, said she felt Mr. Tyler
had a better command of the English language.

She gave Ms.

Lamar

communication

two

skills.

points

out

five

when

assessing

Lamar Interview Form 21, 24, ECF No. 18-1.

Mr. Tyler three points.
20-1.

of

But

the

other

She gave

Tyler Interview Form 30, 33, ECF No.
interviewers

points, and Mr. Tyler three.

each

gave

Ms.

Lamar

four

And overall, the panel scored Ms.

11

Lamar higher than Mr. Tyler.

Compare Lamar Interview Forms 13-

28, with Tyler Interview Forms 24-41.
Mr.

Tyler

also

misrepresentations

points

about

employment application.

to

traffic

Ms.

Lamar’s

tickets

alleged

on

earlier

her

But this evidence is not inconsistent

with the School Board’s conclusion that she was better qualified
under the totality of the circumstances than Mr. Tyler for the
particular job for which she was chosen.

Similarly, Mr. Tyler’s

reliance on previous evaluations of Ms. Lamar to show pretext is
unpersuasive.

One evaluation did indicate that one supervisor

concluded at the time that her attitude needed improvement and
another

indicated

that

her

performance

Lamar Dep. 15:9-14; 19:1-9, ECF No. 14.

was

unsatisfactory.

And when Ms. Lamar

previously left the School District, her separation form said
“no-rehire.”

Tessin Dep. 34:18-19.

But Ms. Tessin explained

that the School District determined it did not agree with the
opinion of the person who filled out the form.
36:17-23.

Mr. Tyler essentially disagrees that Ms. Lamar was

better qualified for the position.
for

this

Tessin Dep.

Court

to

decide

who

it

But it is not appropriate
would

have

hired

for

this

position.

The question is whether Mr. Tyler has pointed to

sufficient

disparities

in

his

and

Ms.

Lamar’s

qualifications

such that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that she was
better

qualified,

thus

leading
12

to

the

conclusion

that

race

and/or

gender,

not

legitimate

qualifications,

must

have

motivated the School District to select her for the position.
Mr. Tyler has failed to carry this burden.
In summary, the record clearly establishes that the School
District sought a candidate who could best resolve conflict and
complaints, interact with others, and model good interpersonal
skills.

Tessin Dep. 76:16-77:3.

It believed that person was

Ms. Lamar, and Mr. Tyler has pointed to no evidence that the
School District made up this reason as a pretext to disguise its
alleged true motivation—gender and racial animus.

The School

District is entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Tyler’s race and
gender

discrimination

claims

related

to

the

Transportation

Specialist position.
CONCLUSION
The

School

District

articulated

legitimate

non-

discriminatory reasons for its decisions to select Ms. Lewis and
Ms. Lamar instead of Mr. Tyler.
that

those

reasons

were

Because Mr. Tyler did not show

pretext

for

gender

or

race

discrimination, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
15) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of July, 2014.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13