Marina Cooper-Houston v. Southern Railway Company , 37 F.3d 603 ( 1994 )

PER CURIAM:

In this employment discrimination action Marina Cooper-Houston contends that she was fired from her job at Southern Rahway because of her race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The district court entered judgment in favor of the Southern Railway Company, 822 F.Supp. 715. We REVERSE and REMAND.

Cooper-Houston began her career at Southern Railway as a key punch operator in 1969. In 1983 she was assigned to the company’s internal police department as a special agent and worked at company headquarters in Atlanta. In May of 1985, Cooper-Houston was transferred to the Georgia Division of the police department and worked under the supervision of R.L. Waggoner, Division Chief of Police. Chief Waggoner fired Cooper-Houston in 1989 for breaching the company confidentiality policy by revealing facts concerning an on going drug investigation to non-police personnel. After her termination she filed the instant action.

The case was tried by a magistrate judge sitting as a special master, pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure 920-2 of the Northern District of Georgia.¹ The magistrate judge concluded that Cooper-Houston presented direct evidence of discrimination and recommended that judgment be entered in her favor. The district court reviewing the magistrate judge’s report disagreed with the determination that Cooper-Houston had introduced direct evidence of discrimination. Rather, the district court noted that the case should have been analyzed as a circumstantial evidence case.² Instead of remanding the case for the application of the proper legal test, however, the district court looked to the record and concluded that, although Cooper-Houston had presented circumstantial evidence of discrimination, she had not proven that Southern Railway had fired her because of her race.

Because this case was tried by a magistrate judge sitting as a special master, the district court sat as a reviewing court and was bound to defer to the factual determinations of the magistrate judge unless those findings were clearly erroneous, and to review the legal conclusions de novo.³ Archambault v. United Computing Sys., Inc., 695 F.2d 551, 552 (11th Cir.1983). The Supreme Court has held that a finding of discriminatory intent is a finding of fact and thus subject to review for clear error. Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287-88, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1789, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the magistrate judge erred in finding that Cooper-Houston presented direct evidence of discrimination. The district court was also correct in determining that the case should be analyzed as a circumstantial evidence case. Unless Southern Railway was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, however, the district court erred in resolving the ease instead of remanding it to the magistrate judge, the trier of fact, for an application of the correct legal standard.

The Supreme Court has held that “where findings are infirm because of an erroneous view of the law, a remand is the proper course unless the record permits only one resolution of the factual issue.” Kelley v. Southern Pacific Co., 419 U.S. 318, 331-32, 95 S.Ct. 472, 479-80, 42 L.Ed.2d 498 (1974). Pullman-Standard, 456 U.S. at 292, 102 S.Ct. at 1792. The Court went on to state that “when a district court’s finding ... [of discriminatory intent] is set aside for an error of law, the court of appeals is not relieved of the usual requirement of remanding for further proceedings to the tribunal charged with the task of factfinding in the first instance.” Id. at 293, 102 S.Ct. at 1792. Here the magistrate judge’s findings are infirm because of an erroneous view of the law. Therefore a remand is the proper course unless the record compels entry of judgment for Southern. Railway.

In considering whether Southern Railway vras entitled to judgment as a matter of law, all inferences are to be drawn in favor of Cooper-Houston. Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir.1989). If Cooper-Houston presented “ ‘evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded [people] in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions,’ ” judgment as a matter of law against her was improper. Verbraeken v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 881 F.2d 1041, 1045 (11th Cir.1989) (quoting Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.1969)). However, to create a question resolvable only by the trier of fact Cooper-Houston must have presented “substantial evidence” of discrimination. Carter, 870 F.2d at 581.

To present a circumstantial case of discrimination, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. Cooper-Houston made this showing by setting forth evidence that she is black, that she was qualified for her job, that she was terminated and that she was replaced by a white person.⁴ See St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, — U.S. —,—, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2747, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The burden of production then shifted to Southern Railway to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for Cooper-Houston’s termination. Hicks, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2748; Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-55, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-95, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Southern Railway satisfied this burden by stating that Cooper-Houston was fired because she had violated the company’s confidentiality policy by leaking information regarding an ongoing investigation. Cooper-Houston was then obligated to present evidence that Southern Railway’s legitimate reasons were not what actually motivated its conduct. Hicks, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2747-48; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095. She presented evidence that she was treated less favorably than her white co-worker in terms of work schedule, job assignments, absences, lateness and that her conduct was generally given greater scrutiny. Cooper-Houston also presented evidence that racially derogatory remarks were made by her co-workers, including comments by Chief Waggoner.

The district court did not conclude that the magistrate judge’s findings that Cooper-Houston was treated less favorably than her white counterpart and that Chief Waggoner used racial slurs were clearly erroneous. In fact, the district court evaluated the evidence presented by Cooper-Houston and concluded that Chief Waggoner “did not hold black people in equal respect.” It stated, however, that there “was no evidence that the chiefs general attitudes played a part in the decision,” and therefore entered judgment for Southern Railway. In reaching this conclusion, the district court exceeded its proper role as a reviewing body because a finder of fact could have concluded that Chief Wag-goner’s termination of Cooper-Houston was motivated by racial animus.⁵

Based on our review of the record in this case we cannot conclude that Southern Railway was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The conflicting evidence presented mandates that a fact-finder resolve the contrary explanations for Cooper-Houston’s termination. Therefore we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1 . Rule 920-2 provides:

All cases brought in the Atlanta and Newnan Divisions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) shall be referred at the time of filing to the full-time magistrates under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5) who shall, acting as special masters, hear and decide said cases in their entirety.

2 . In a direct evidence discrimination case, once a plaintiff produces direct evidence that is believed by the fact-finder, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove as an affirmative defense that he or she would have made the same decision absent the discrimination present. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 243-44, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 1787, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). In a case proven by circumstantial evidence the burden of persuasion never shifts to the defendant. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-94, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).

3 .In cases in which legal error taints the fact-finding process, factual findings may be given de novo review. Lincoln v. Board of Regents, 697 F.2d 928, 938-39 n. 13 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826, 104 S.Ct. 97, 78 L.Ed.2d 102 (1983). In this case there is no indication that the district court intended to review the factual findings de novo. It did not determine that legal error tainted the fact-finding process but merely stated that the magistrate’s finding of discrimination was clearly erroneous.

4 . Southern argues that Cooper-Houston failed to make out a prima facie case. It contends that she had to demonstrate either she did not violate the work rule, or that employees outside of the protected class that engaged in similar misconduct were treated with less severity, citing Jones v. Gerwens, 874 F.2d 1534, 1539-40 (11th Cir.1989). The holding in Jones, however, applies only to Title VII cases in which a plaintiff has not been terminated and therefore cannot show that he or she was replaced by a person outside of the protected class.

5 . A review of the district court’s order in this case demonstrates that it did not confine itself to the role of a reviewing court. The district court stated that its duty was to determine what motivated Chief Waggoner to fire Cooper-Houston when, in fact, that task should have fallen to the trier of fact. Further, the district court referred to itself as a trier of fact and a finder of fact in several passages of the order.