Joyce Royster v. Laurel Highlands School Distri ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ________________
    No. 14-1373
    ________________
    JOYCE ROYSTER,
    Appellant
    v.
    LAUREL HIGHLANDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
    ________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-12-cv-00244)
    District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
    ________________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    November 17, 2014
    Before: AMBRO, SCIRICA, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: December 11, 2014)
    ________________
    OPINION*
    ________________
    AMBRO, Circuit Judge
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    Dr. Joyce Royster filed this action against Laurel Highlands School District (the
    “School District”) alleging race, gender, and age discrimination under: 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; the Age
    Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.; and the
    Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 955(a), et seq. She appeals the
    District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the School District on all of her
    claims. We affirm that judgment.
    I.
    In the fall of 2010, the School District sought to appoint a new Superintendent for
    the following school year. The outgoing Superintendent, Dr. Gary Brain, recommended
    that the School Board first consider three current employees with whom Brain personally
    had worked and was well acquainted. Each was a Caucasian male in his mid-40s. The
    Board agreed it would prioritize these three candidates before opening up the position to
    external applicants.
    In November 2010, Royster called Beverly Beal, a member of the School Board,
    to discuss Royster’s granddaughter, a student enrolled at Laurel Highlands Middle
    School. During the call, Beal mentioned the Superintendent vacancy and suggested
    Royster apply. Interested in the job, Royster called the School District’s administrative
    office to obtain an application packet. A staff member told her there was no such packet
    but provided her with the School Board’s contact information. Over the next couple of
    months, Royster communicated with seven of the nine Board members to inquire about
    the position. The members with whom she spoke, however, gave her conflicting
    2
    information. While two, including Beal, stated that Royster had a “fair” and “equal
    opportunity to apply,” one Board Member told her “they were going to hire from inside.”
    In January 2011, Royster mailed a letter and resumé to School Board President
    Angelo Giachetti and hand delivered a copy of these materials to Beal after running into
    her at a local restaurant. On receiving Royster’s application, Giachetti informed her that
    the School Board only was considering internal candidates for the Superintendent
    position. Indeed, the Board met informally with each of these individuals in December
    2010 and hired one of the three in March 2011. The School District never posted the
    Superintendent position, either internally or externally, and it never considered any
    candidates besides the three interviewed applicants. When she discovered that the
    Superintendent position had been filled, Royster brought suit.
    The District Court granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment,
    concluding that Royster produced no evidence that the School District treated her
    differently than it did similarly situated individuals outside of her protected class. In the
    alternative, the District Court held that, even had Royster established a prima facie case,
    the record was devoid of evidence suggesting that the School District’s non-
    discriminatory reason for failing to hire her—namely, its preference for hiring an internal
    candidate—was merely pretext for unlawful discrimination.
    II.
    The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We
    have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We exercise plenary review over a District
    Court’s grant of summary judgment . . . .” Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores Inc., 
    691 F.3d 527
    ,
    3
    545 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 
    256 F.3d 120
    , 130 n.6 (3d Cir.
    2001)). “We will affirm if our review shows ‘that there is no genuine dispute as to any
    material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Liberty Mut.
    Ins. Co. v. Sweeney, 
    689 F.3d 288
    , 292 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). In
    undertaking that inquiry, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
    moving party. Heightened Independence & Progress, Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,
    
    693 F.3d 345
    , 351 (3d Cir. 2012).
    III.
    As Royster has produced no direct evidence of sex, race, or age discrimination, her
    claims are governed by McDonnell Douglas’s burden-shifting framework. See
    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
    (1973). In order to establish a prima
    facie case of discrimination based on a failure to hire, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is
    a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for an employment position, (3) the
    employer rejected her despite her qualifications, and (4) she was afforded less favorable
    treatment than similarly situated individuals outside her class. 
    Id. at 802.
    If the plaintiff
    succeeds in making a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to identify a
    legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment action. 
    Id. If the
    defendant
    carries its burden, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s stated reason is a pretext
    for unlawful discrimination. 
    Id. at 804.
    The School District concedes that Royster has satisfied the first three elements of
    her prima facie case. The only question is whether she has satisfied the fourth prong—
    4
    whether a similarly situated individual outside her protected class under comparable
    circumstances received more favorable treatment than her.
    We agree with the District Court that Royster and her proffered comparators are
    not similarly situated. Though “similarly situated” obviously does not mean “identically
    situated,” a plaintiff must demonstrate that she and her alleged comparators are “alike in
    all relevant respects.” Startzell v. City of Phila., 
    533 F.3d 183
    , 203 (3d Cir. 2008). Here
    the three interviewed applicants all were current employees of the School District with
    personal recommendations from Brain. Royster, by contrast, was an external candidate
    who had no prior work relationship with the School District. Given these significant
    differences, Royster and the interviewed candidates were not “alike in all relevant
    respects.” See, e.g., Kelley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 
    220 F.3d 1174
    , 1178 (10th
    Cir. 2000) (holding that an external candidate was not similarly situated to “an internal
    applicant, who, by [the defendant’s] policy was not required to go through the full
    interview process”); Leadbetter v. Gilley, 
    385 F.3d 683
    , 692 (6th Cir. 2004) (concluding
    that two applicants for a university position were not appropriate comparators where only
    one “was recommended by the University’s top brass”).
    Royster’s counterarguments are unavailing. Her assertion that the School Board
    considered an external candidate for the position of Federal Programs Coordinator in
    2008, despite having only advertised that position internally, is not on point. The School
    Board’s behavior approximately three years earlier when hiring for a lesser
    administrative position sheds no light on its hiring criteria for a completely different
    position not advertised at all. Likewise, the fact that two Board members told Royster
    5
    that she had a “fair” or “equal opportunity to apply” does not establish that she and the
    interviewed candidates were in fact alike in all relevant respects. Notwithstanding that no
    single Board member had authority to act or speak alone on behalf of the Board, these
    offhand comments cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean the Board was equally
    predisposed to hire Royster for the job as the internal candidates.
    Because the record reveals no other evidence that gives rise to an inference of
    discrimination, Royster cannot make out a prima facie case, and we need not examine the
    remaining steps in the McDonnell Douglas framework. Summary judgment was proper,
    and we thus affirm.
    6