No. 11-2386
ANNE COLLINS,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cv-02020-MJG)
Argued:
Decided:
We
view
the
evidence
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
from
1966
academic year.
until
she
retired
just
before
the
2006-07
did not wish to teach summer school, and she also expressed her
opinion
that
she
was
overworked
and
underappreciated
at
Patterson and that she needed to take this chance to have a new
beginning.
J.A. 274.
taught French in the past, which led Bonn to assume that Collins
was
certified
to
teach
the
subject.
Accordingly,
Bonn
Department
Although
Bonn
Head
position
understood
that
Collins
Collins
held
had
at
Patterson.
requested
the
her
30s,
replaced
Collins
as
Director
of
the
Twilight
Program.
When Collins arrived at Forest Park to begin the 2006-07
academic year, two problems arose.
that
she
was
Department
assigned
Head
to
position.
teaching
position
Second,
Bonns
instead
of
assumption
that
had
no
available
certified to teach.
positions
in
subjects
Collins
was
of
the
She
grievance.
then
filed
Collins
a
declined
grievance
with
this
the
offer
School
and
Board
Collins appeals
that judgment.
II.
A.
We review the district courts grant of summary judgment de
novo.
Nader
v.
Blair,
549
F.3d
953,
958
(4th
Cir.
2008).
Id.
B.
As
under
did
the
Green,
411
the
district
framework
U.S.
court,
developed
792
(1973)
in
we
analyze
McDonnell
(analyzing
Collinss
Douglas
race
claims
Corp.
v.
discrimination
by
producing
evidence
that
(1)
she
is
member
of
action,
and
(4)
the
adverse
employment
action
If Collins establishes a
prima facie case, the burden shifts to the School Board to set
forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action.
Cir.
2004).
Then,
avoid
summary
judgment,
Collins
must
produce evidence that the School Boards stated reason for the
adverse action is pretextual.
Id.
discriminated
against
[Collins]
remains
at
all
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000), quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at
253.
Collins
argues
that
the
transfer
constituted
a
constructive discharge.
We need not address that contention
because, for our analysis, we will assume that the transfer,
along with the accompanying pay decrease and failure to be
reappointed as Director of the Twilight Program, was an adverse
employment action within the meaning of Title VII and the ADEA.
adverse
interpreted
action:
it
Collinss
transferred
letter
as
Collins
request
because
for
DAnna
transfer.
evidence
that
the
School
Boards
explanation
was
concluding
that
she
failed
to
produce
evidence
that
the
the
pretextual
School
and
Boards
evidence
stated
that
reason
for
the
discrimination
transfer
was
the
was
actual
Accordingly, we affirm.
1.
to
that
claim,
we
conclude
that
Collins
failed
With
to
does
Burdine,
so
by
450
showing
U.S.
that
at
she
253.
was
Usually,
replaced
by
a
an
is
contends
Flores,
what
that
Collins
she
attempts
here.
replaced
as
However,
the
was
Caucasian.
Specifically,
Department
record
Head
evidence
Collins
by
Kelly
does
not
that
it
seemed
that
Flores
had
replaced
Collins
as
J.A. 769.
We
if that
opinion.
(4th Cir.
inference
that
Flores
replaced
Collins
as
Department
Head.
Accordingly, we affirm
the
judgment
district
courts
entry
of
summary
on
the
race
discrimination claim.
2.
We next turn to Collinss age discrimination claim.
this
claim,
she
has
established
prima
facie
On
case
of
of
the
protected class.
Twilight
Program
by
person
outside
the
Accordingly,
we affirm.
Collins asserts that a number of factors support her claim
of pretext, but we discuss only one. 5
School
Boards
inconsistent
explanation
with
the
that
Human
she
requested
Resources
Change
transfer
Form
is
which
indicated the transfer was a demotion and did not indicate that
has
consistently
asserted
that
she
interpreted
Thus,
request,
discrimination.
this
mistake
is
not
evidence
of
pretext
or
which
Bonn
explanation.
completed
Bonn
believed
is
not
that
inconsistent
Collins
had
with
requested
this
the
transfer, but Bonn still marked the demotion box on the Human
Resource Change Form because of the pay decrease. 6
Further, he
did not mark the voluntary transfer box because he lacked the
requisite paperwork.
thought
the
transfer
was
not
voluntary.
Given
this
School
Boards
explanation
for
the
transfer
and
is
not
10
evidence of pretext.
739 F.2d 304, 308 (7th Cir. 1984) (no inference of pretext where
defendant
gave
suspicious
uncontradicted
circumstances
explanation
surrounding
of
personnel
potentially
documents).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district courts
entry of summary judgment in favor of the School Board.
AFFIRMED
12
and
inconsistencies
nondiscriminatory
rationale,
in
cannot
School
agree
that
Boards
Collins
has
is
simply
not
our
place
to
deem
the
School
Boards
or
genuine,
for
Collins
has
produced
sufficient
Accordingly, I respectfully
I.
The Baltimore City School Board hired Collins in 1966 as a
foreign language teacher at Patterson High School.
In 1973,
In
School
program
diploma.
for
Both
older
students
positions
seeking
entailed
high
additional
school
supervisory
June
conversation
assistant
2006,
in
Collins
which
principal
and
Principal
Collins
position
Laura
expressed
at
DAnna
interest
Patterson.
had
in
After
the
DAnna
explained that she lacked the authority to hire Collins for that
position,
Collins
beginning.
resources
supposedly
J.A. 345.
expressing
conveyed
her
desire
for
that
beginning.
her
have
can
new
with
the
to
only
take
hope
this
that
chance
this
to
schools
The letter
have
September
will
new
be
J.A. 274.
new
beginning,
both
in
the
conversation
and
the
which
the
he
admitted
transfer
as
an
constituted
demotion,
administrative,
and
involuntary
Collective
Bargaining
Agreement
required
for
voluntary
J.A. 354.
days
reduction
later.
in
The
salary
reassignment
because
Collins
resulted
would
not
in
serve
$3,000
as
the
II.
A.
Plaintiffs asserting ADEA claims may, just as with Title
VII
claims,
establish
discrimination
or
liability
through
through
the
direct
circumstantial
evidence
proof
of
scheme
See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 430 (4th Cir. 2006)
banc).
Because
satisfied
the
McDonnell
Douglas
whether
the
majority
prerequisites
jury
nondiscriminatory
for
could
her
find
rationale
for
ADEA
15
that
prima
facie
claim,
that
for
concedes
the
its
the
School
adverse
Collins
case
has
under
question
becomes
Boards
alleged
employment
action
at 804-05.
My colleagues here improperly penalize Collins because at
the summary judgment stage she had nothing to show in the way of
discriminatory
animus
except
the
falsity
of
the
Yet in
16
Id. at 148.
Yet the
representative
instances
that
the
Court
highlighted
as
has
provided
conclusively
evidence
reveal[s]
of
some
pretext,
other,
(1)
where
the
nondiscriminatory
U.S.
evidence
at
148.
that
no
Neither
discrimination
circumstance
ha[s]
though
occurred.
applies
to
Collinss claim.
The majority also cites two circuit cases, apparently for
the principle that there must be some affirmative evidence of
unlawful animus to create a triable issue of discrimination.
But to the extent either Millbrook v. IBP, Inc., 280 F.3d 1169,
1183
(7th
Corp.,
248
Cir.
F.3d
2002),
87,
or
94
Slattery
(2d
Cir.
17
v.
Swiss
2001),
Reinsurance
stand
for
Am.
such
The
is
not
intentional
proof
of
likely
to
leave
discrimination,
unlawful
animus
behind
in
which
will
be
direct
case
the
the
lie
An
evidence
only
that
of
available
covers
it.
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 318 (4th
Cir. 2005) (The pretext framework advances that interest by
compensating for the fact that direct evidence of intentional
discrimination
is
hard
to
come
by.
(internal
quotations
omitted)).
dishonesty
partys
evidence
of
guilt.
about
material
Reeves,
530
fact
U.S.
at
as
affirmative
147
(internal
quotations omitted).
Of course, liability ultimately requires the trier of fact
to not only find an employers justification to be false, and
thus pretextual, but also find the explanation to be pretext for
discrimination.
(4th
Cir.
2004).
summary
judgment,
however,
Reeves
only
requires the plaintiff to prove the former for the jury to have
a legally sufficient basis to find the latter at trial.
Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147-48.
18
See
B.
Collins has sufficiently discredited the nondiscriminatory
explanation, accepted by the majority, that the School Board
mistakenly
believed
that
she
requested
transfer.
As
an
Barnes v. GenCorp
after
DAnna
informed
Bonn
that
Collins
wished
to
In particular,
beginning--which
figurative
fresh
could
start
have
at
just
as
Patterson
easily
the
connoted
next
year--was
denies
that
she
ever
requested
transfer,
never
asked
her
to
file
19
Transfer
Request
Form
as
Among other
things,
list
the
form
would
have
allowed
Collins
to
[her]
J.A. 354.
The
School Board insists this was a clerical error, and that it did
not
check
the
voluntary
box
on
the
reassignment
paperwork
Yet, no
one from the School Board (1) requested that Collins fill out
such a form to comply with its own internal policies, or (2)
inquired what schools Collins preferred for reassignment, when
she
wanted
to
start,
or
what
classes
she
wanted
to
teach.
Board
unilaterally
removed
and
reassigned
Collins
to
the
response
factual
including
notion
to
an
that
employees
matter.
its
Collinss
The
own
involuntary--simply
request
School
not
20
seems
Boards
designation
does
reassignment
of
square
At the very
was
questionable
unilateral
the
genuine
as
conduct--
reassignment
with
as
supposedly
voluntary transfer.
the
transfer
was
mistake,
together
belie
the
School
an
involuntary
reassignment
designed
to
resolve
personal
to
find
discriminatory
animus,
but
there
is
certainly
21
But
indeed
the
reason
for
the
reassignment.
It
is
worth
not
assessment.
omitted)).
persuasion;
Reeves,
530
it
U.S.
can
at
involve
142
no
credibility
(internal
quotations
most
favorable
to
[Collins],
as
the
nonmoving
party.
Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 150 (4th Cir.
2012) (internal quotations omitted).
This
case
is
not
about
whether
the
evidence
offered
by
legally
sufficient
basis
for
jury
to
find
for
discrimination.
But
the
because
School
Collins
Boards
has
provided
explanation
evidence
that
Collins
for
sufficient
reassigning
I respectfully
23