Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McLaughlin v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

June 2, 2017

MICHELLE McLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER

          R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court to consider Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration filed on October 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">18, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16. [ECF #72]. Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”) requests this Court reconsider its previously issued Order, dated September 29, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16, wherein this Court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment in favor of Defendant. [ECF #70]. On November 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF #75], and on November 21');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16, Defendant filed its Reply Brief [ECF #76]. All parties have had the opportunity to extensively brief the issues raised in the motion, and this Court has thoroughly considered all the filings in this case.[1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1" name="FN1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1" id= "FN1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1] This Court now issues the following ruling.

         Background

         On January 28, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF #35]. On February 26, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16, Plaintiff filed her response in opposition to Defendant's Motion. [ECF #47]. Defendant filed its reply in support of its Motion on March 7, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16. [ECF #49]. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.) this matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling, and the Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment to Defendant on all claims. [ECF #61');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1]. After Plaintiff filed her objections, and Defendant responded to those objections, this matter came before this Court. This Court granted summary judgment to Defendant with respect to most of Plaintiff's claims, except on one failure-to-promote claim regarding the 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">13 Florence roadmaster selection of another candidate. This Court found that Plaintiff met her burden to show that she may be able to prove that Defendant's proffered reason for selecting another individual instead of Plaintiff was pretextual. [ECF #64]. Defendant now argues that the Court erred in determining that Plaintiff may be able to prove this claim because it offered two reasons for its decision to hire another candidate, and Plaintiff has not shown that both of these reasons were “false” or an “ex post justification.” [ECF #72-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, pp. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1-2]. Specifically, Defendant argues that this is the first time it has had the opportunity to address the argument that its proffered reason given for hiring another candidate was false. [ECF #72-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 2]. Defendant argues that in Plaintiff's objections she did not challenge Defendant's proffered reason for its decision to hire another candidate as “false” or an “ex post justification, ” and Plaintiff also did not raise specific objections to this particular job candidate selection. [ECF #72-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 2]. Plaintiff contends Defendant did in fact have the opportunity to raise these arguments, and further, that Plaintiff did provide facts to combat the proffered reason for selecting another candidate for the 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">13 Florence position and show why she felt the reason was “false” or pretextual. [ECF # 75, pp. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1-3].

         Standard of Review

         Defendant makes its Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Rule 54(b) governs the Court's reconsideration of interlocutory orders. Rule 54(b) permits a district court to revise “any order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities. Fed R. Civ. P. 54(b). A district court's discretion to modify an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b) is broader than “the strict standards applicable to motions to alter or amend a final judgment under Rule 59(e) or for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).” AMCOL Sys., Inc. v. Lemberg Law, LLC, No. 3:1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">15-3422-CMC, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16 WL 61');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">13896, at *2 (D.S.C. Feb. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16)(quoting Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 51');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">14-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">15 (4th Cir. 2003). However, though the strict standards applicable to Rule 59 do not apply to motions brought under Rule 54(b), district courts within this circuit look to the standards of Rule 59 for guidance. Poole v. Transcon. Fund Admin., Ltd., No 6:1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">12-2943-BHH, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16 WL 301');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1225, at *1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1 (D.S.C. Jan 25, 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">16).

         The Fourth Circuit has held that, as with a motion under Rule 59, Rule 54(b) motions should be granted for three reasons: (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of new evidence; or (3) “to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Id.; see also Collison v. International Chemical Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1994). Defendant does not explicitly point to which of the three reasons it believes warrants this Motion being granted, however its argument appears to be that it was a clear error of law or manifestly unjust to deny summary judgment on this claim. Having reviewed the Motion, Response, and Reply, the Court concludes that the denial of summary judgment on the ground discussed in the Motion was appropriate, albeit this Court acknowledges that whether Plaintiff can make a robust argument to a trier of fact based on the current evidence to support her remaining claim is questionable.

         Discussion

         Plaintiff's Complaint alleged several claims against Defendant, including violations of Title VII, violations of § 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1981');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, and assault and battery, a claim she later abandoned. [ECF #1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1]. The Complaint asserted that Plaintiff was denied numerous promotions, which were given instead to male employees who were equally or less qualified than Plaintiff. [ECF #1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 3]. In this Court's Order granting in part and denying in part summary judgment in favor of Defendant, this Court declined to grant summary judgment on one of Plaintiff's failure-to-promote claims. The particular claim was that in February 201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">13, Defendant placed another employee, Jonathan Thomas, in an available roadmaster position in Florence, SC, that Plaintiff believes evidences a discriminatory intent on the part of Defendant to prevent her from receiving this promotion. Defendant argued that it directly placed this employee in the position because he had the qualifications Defendant was looking for, was more qualified than Plaintiff for this position, and Plaintiff was not ready to be placed in a roadmaster position.

         This Court considered the fact that Plaintiff provided the following circumstantial evidence surrounding this position: (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1) she had spent more time with the company; (2) Mr. Thomas did not have the same railroad experience; (3) Florence had never had a female manager; and (4) she was better qualified in that she had been trained by Defendant. [ECF #70]. This Court also found relevant the fact that she was temporarily placed to fill Mr. Thomas's position while he was absent, and she was appointed and placed as an assistant roadmaster in the Florence division. [ECF #72]. All of these facts together led this Court to find that Plaintiff had provided sufficient facts to get past summary judgment on this one claim.

         As an initial matter, Defendant argues that this Motion is the first time it has had the opportunity to address or challenge the argument that its proffered reason for its employment action (to hire Jonathan Thomas) was false or an ex post justification (i.e. pretextual) because Plaintiff did not raise this issue. [ECF #72-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 2]. The flaw in Defendant's argument, as will be more fully addressed below, is that Defendant assumes that this Court's decision was necessarily based on the fact that Plaintiff only met her burden of showing pretext in one of two ways (i.e. that she did not make the proper showing that she better qualified, because the Court did not explicitly make that finding). [ECF #72-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1]. The Order actually points to Plaintiff's arguments regarding her qualifications as one circumstantial piece of evidence that supports the finding that she met her burden of proof. [ECF #70, p. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1]. Moreover, a review of the record reveals that while Plaintiff may not have explicitly said Defendant's proffered reason was “false, ” she clearly raised this argument. For example, she argued that her testimony, along with the testimony of Ernest McWhite, another employee, refute Defendant's proffered reason that Plaintiff did not have the requisite technical skill required for the position and that Mr. Thomas was better qualified than Plaintiff. [ECF #47, pp. 26-27]. Again in her objections to the R&R, Plaintiff objected to that finding, with respect to each failure to promote claim, that Plaintiff could not show she was more qualified than the other candidate chosen. [ECF #64, p. 8]. In fact, relying upon prior case law stating pretext can be established by showing a given reason is “unworthy of credence, ” Plaintiff argued the facts she believed showed that Defendant's proffered reason or reasons were “unworthy of credence” (i.e., that they were false). [ECF #65, pp. 9-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1].

         This Court considered both arguments, but ultimately agreed with Plaintiff that she brought forth enough evidence with respect to this position to meet her burden of proof for summary judgment purposes. Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant has previously had the opportunity to address arguments regarding whether its proffered reasons for promoting Mr. Thomas were pretextual in that its reasons may have been false. Nonetheless, this Court has considered Defendant's Motion and will consider its arguments.

         To prove a case of discriminatory failure to promote under Title VII, a plaintiff must either put forth direct evidence of a discriminatory purpose by a defendant in promoting employees, or circumstantial evidence of “sufficiently probative force to raise a genuine issue of material fact.” Cutshall v. Potter, 347 F.Supp.2d 228, 233 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, 2004) (citing Evans v. Tech. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 959 (4th Cir. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1996)). A plaintiff may also satisfy this burden by showing that an employer's proffered reason for an employment action is unworthy of credence. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">133');">530 U.S. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">133, 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">148 (2000). Defendant asserts that it provided two legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to select another candidate over Plaintiff for the position in question: (1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1) the candidate was better qualified; and (2) Plaintiff did not have the requisite technical knowledge needed, as indicated in recent performance reviews. [ECF #72-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 3]. Defendant argues that in order to defeat summary judgment, Plaintiff had to show that both of these reasons were pretextual.[2] First, this Court notes that what Defendant seeks to characterize as two distinct proffered reasons actually overlap in that one necessarily impacts or subsumes the other. Second, Plaintiff adequately addressed the reasons given by Defendant for hiring Mr. Thomas, regardless of whether she parsed them out individually or considered them all at once. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that Defendant was unworthy of credence for finding Mr. Thomas was better qualified in that she was with the company longer and she was trained by Defendant, and that the reason given that she lacked the technical knowledge needed was unworthy of credence because they later asked her to fill in for that same position (i.e. Defendant would not ask someone lacking the necessary skills to temporary fill in for that position). Plaintiff also produced the affidavit of Ernest McWhite, a fellow former employee and roadmaster who testified as to Plaintiff's technical skills and qualifications and bolstered Plaintiff's belief that Defendant's given reasons for not hiring her were steeped in pretext. [ECF #47-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1]. Thus, this Court agrees with Plaintiff that her showing that she was better qualified simultaneously also showed that Defendant's proffered reason that someone else was more qualified was false or pretextual.

         1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1. Mr. Thomas was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.