Lawrence v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 20, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
)))))))))))))))))))))))))) Clerk
No. 05-30769
Summary Calendar
))))))))))))))))))))))))))
MARGARET B. LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:01-CV-710
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Margaret Lawrence, pro se, challenges the
jury’s verdict that Defendant-Appellee East Baton Rouge Parish
School Board (“School Board”) did not discriminate against her based
on her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and various state
laws. Because we find that the jury’s verdict is supported by
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
substantial evidence, we AFFIRM the district court’s entry of
judgment for the School Board.
I. BACKGROUND
Lawrence, a Black female, has been a teacher in East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisiana since 1985. Lawrence has an undergraduate
degree in English from Southern University, and a Masters of
Education with a specialization in reading from the University of
Missouri at St. Louis. She also has a +30 hours professional
certification of further graduate school training in Reading,
Administration, and Supervision from Purdue University. Before
working for the School Board, Lawrence worked in a variety of
positions including Tensas Parish School Board’s Reading Supervisor
from 1979-1981 and Reading Specialist teacher in Texas middle
schools in the 1980s.
Lawrence applied for the School Board’s Reading Supervisor
position when it was advertised in November 1997. According to
trial testimony, the ideal candidate would have experience across
all levels of instruction but with more emphasis in elementary
education. That person would also be aware of current trends in
reading and be able to train other educators on new techniques to
use in their classrooms. A committee comprised of Caucasian and
African-American members interviewed Lawrence and several other
applicants for the position. At trial, Lawrence testified that,
during her interview, Evelyn Alford, a committee member, treated her
rudely, yelled at her, and interrupted her as she attempted to
2
answer a question. However, none of the other interviewers
testified that Alford was rude to Lawrence. The committee did not
offer the job to any of the candidates. Instead, the Board re-
advertised the position and informed the previous applicants that
they need not reapply. Trial testimony suggests that, while
Lawrence met the minimum qualifications for the job, she was not
selected because she did not have recent experience teaching reading
since she had been teaching high school English courses. She also
did not have any recent administrative experience in reading, having
served as a reading supervisor over fifteen years ago. Some of the
interviewers also testified that Lawrence was unable to articulate
how she would enhance the system’s reading program.
After the vacancy was re-advertised, a different panel of
interviewers recommended Dr. Sarah Rentz1 for the position.
However, Rentz declined the offer. The position remained unfilled
and the vacancy was re-advertised again. Lawrence reapplied and was
one of the candidates interviewed by a different panel of
interviewers. After that round of interviews, the committee offered
the position to Dr. Karen LaCroix. Dr. LaCroix declined the offer.
The committee then re-offered the position to Dr. Rentz who accepted
the offer.
1
Dr. Rentz worked as a reading teacher for the School Board
for over twenty years. Her doctorate degree is in psychology and
reading. While Dr. Rentz’s teaching certificate was primarily in
the area of elementary education, she had taught reading at all
levels of instruction. Dr. Rentz also helped to train teachers
across the state in reading techniques.
3
Lawrence filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which issued a
determination that it was more likely than not that discrimination
motivated the School Board’s decision to promote Dr. Rentz instead
of Lawrence.
After Dr. Rentz retired in 2000, Lawrence applied again for the
Reading Supervisor position. The position remained vacant and was
re-advertised. Although the committee eventually interviewed
Lawrence, it selected Christel O’Quin for the position. Testimony
suggests that O’Quin was chosen because committee members were
impressed with the fact that she worked as a reading specialist for
the Louisiana Department of Education and because she had served as
an elementary and middle school principle in another parish.
Although Lawrence filed a second charge with the EEOC, the
Commission did not finish its investigation because Lawrence
requested a right to sue letter before the investigation was
complete. A jury trial was held in July 2005 on the issue of
whether the School Board discriminated against Lawrence on the basis
of race when it refused to promote her to the supervisory position
on both occasions. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the
School Board, and the district court entered judgment. This appeal
followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the jury’s verdict for the School Board only to
4
determine whether it is “supported by substantial evidence.” Snyder
v. Trepagnier, 142 F.3d 791, 795 (5th Cir. 1998). Substantial
evidence is evidence “of such weight and quality that reasonable and
fair minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach
different conclusions.” Id. (quoting Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d
365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969)(en banc), overruled on other grounds by
Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir.1997)).
III. DISCUSSION
Lawrence’s primary argument is that the School Board should
have promoted her to the Reading Supervisor position because she was
more qualified than Dr. Rentz and O’Quin. She asserts that because
she was more qualified than the two individuals selected for the
position, the only reason she was not promoted was because of her
race.
Although it is undisputed that Lawrence met the minimum
qualifications for the position, the jury reasonably believed the
School Board’s assertion that she was not the most qualified
candidate for the job. The jury heard testimony regarding the
qualifications of Lawrence, Dr. Rentz, and O’Quin. Dr. Rentz worked
as a reading teacher for the School Board for over twenty years.
She holds a doctorate degree is in psychology and reading, and she
had taught reading at all levels of instruction. Dr. Rentz also
helped to train teachers across the state in reading techniques.
While Lawrence also has assisted in numerous workshops for other
5
teachers, she does not hold a doctorate degree. Moreover, Lawrence
did not have recent experience teaching reading since she had been
teaching high school English courses.
With regard to O’Quin, committee members testified that they
admired that she had worked as a reading specialist for the
Louisiana Department of Education and that she had served as an
elementary and middle school principle in another parish. In
addition, in her interview, O’Quin demonstrated a breadth of
knowledge regarding innovative approaches to reading. Lawrence, on
the other hand, did not have any recent administrative experience
in reading, having served as a Reading Supervisor for a stint over
fifteen years before the position became available. Furthermore,
some of the interviewers also testified that Lawrence was unable to
articulate how she would enhance the system’s reading program.
Therefore, we find that the jury’s verdict for the School Board is
supported by substantial evidence.
Lawrence also argues that the fact that the majority of
interviewers on the interview committees were Caucasian suggests
that the committee members were not fair in assessing the
candidates’ abilities. This case does not resemble those in which
we have criticized interview processes involving all-white
supervisory staff members serving as interviewers and relying on
subjective judgments. See, e.g., Pettway v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.,
494 F.2d 211, 240 (5th Cir. 1974). The record reflects that each
6
committee was comprised of male, female, Caucasian, and Black
members. The fact that different interview panels met with
different candidates also does not support an inference that the
School Board discriminated against Lawrence. Finally, although
Lawrence testified that he was treated rudely by a committee member,
none of the other interviewers recalled Alford being rude to
Lawrence.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial
evidence, we AFFIRM the district court’s entry of judgment for the
School Board.
7