Where a plaintiff is alleging that she
was denied a promotion in retaliation for engaging in protected
activity, the ultimate issue is not whether she was the most qualified
candidate, but whether she was denied the promotion because she engaged
in protected activity.
Hall v. Forest
River, Inc., 536 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. July 30, 2008)
Introduction: This is a Title VII
retaliation action.
Facts: Forest River manufactures
recreational vehicles. Shellee Hall worked as a quality control
inspector in the Quality Assurance Department in the company's Goshen,
Indiana facility. In addition to inspectors, the Quality Assurance
Department employs supervisors known as auditors. Auditors travel from
plant to plant and supervise multiple inspectors. John Blair was the
manager of Forest River's Quality Assurance Department. In January 2002,
Hall transferred to the Topeka plant. While there, she and Monica Horn
were allegedly sexually harassed by an employee named John Quake. At
Hall's request, she was transferred from the Topeka plant to the
Elkhart, Indiana plant effective August 19, 2002. After her transfer,
she spoke with Forest River's human resources director Jeffrey Rowe
about Quake's alleged harassment of her and Horn. She made it clear that
she intended to support Horn. Previously, Hall had sought a promotion to
the auditor position, but had not been selected. Around the same time as
her transfer to the Elkhart plant, Forest River promoted Leo Akins to
the position of auditor. Hall claims that she was not selected for the
promotion in retaliation for her support of Horn.
District court: The district court
granted Forest River's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Appeal: The Seventh Circuit affirms.
In analyzing whether a denial of promotion is retaliatory, the Court
explains:
Forest River [argues] that Title VII
only prohibits discrimination and retaliation and does not give
those who oppose an unlawful employment practice better rights,
which would be the case if employees have a right to be promoted
over someone who is better qualified. See Appellee's Br. at
9. We are not saying, however, that Forest River must promote
someone because they opposed unlawful employment practices; what we
are saying, though, is that Forest River cannot deny someone a
promotion because they opposed an unlawful employment
practice. In most cases, employers promote the best qualified
employee, and if that practice results in someone being promoted
over an individual who had objected to an unlawful employment
practice, there is no basis for a retaliation claim. However, if an
employee could show that he would have been promoted even though
another candidate was better qualified, but that the employer did
not promote him because he opposed an unlawful employment
practice, the employee can establish a retaliation claim.
With respect to the merits of Hall's claim,
the Court explains:
We stress that in
considering the propriety of judgment as a matter of law, we must
consider the totality of the record. The record, as a whole,
includes undisputed evidence that Forest River considered Akins the
most qualified candidate for the promotion. Blair testified that he
chose Akins for the auditor position because he "could diffuse
conflict in a heartbeat," was a "self starter," and followed through
on his assignments. Blair also testified that auditors needed "to be
able to keep production and quality separated," and that on several
occasions, while working as an inspector, Hall improperly took over
production work as opposed to focusing on quality, and this could
impair objectivity. Hall did not present any evidence calling into
question Akins' superior qualifications or Blair's relative
assessment of Akins and Hall's qualifications. Without some evidence
of pretext or evidence that Forest River retaliated against her,
Hall cannot prevail as a matter of law.