Opinion
Case No. 01-2288-JWL
November 14, 2002.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff William Henderson, appearing pro se, filed this action against defendant Excel Personnel Services alleging that defendant, on the basis of plaintiff's race, failed to place plaintiff in a particular position in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. This matter is presently before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. #31). For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
Facts
The following facts are either uncontroverted or related in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the nonmoving party. Plaintiff is an African-American male who, on or about March 9, 2001, responded to an advertisement placed by defendant, a temporary staffing agency, for temporary placement with one of defendant's customers as a machine operator. After plaintiff submitted his application for placement, defendant's customer informed defendant that it no longer desired to hire a temporary employee. Defendant then informed plaintiff of its customer's decision, stopped seeking applicants for the position, and did not place anyone in the position for which plaintiff had applied.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and that it is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In applying this standard, the court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Spaulding v. United Transp. Union, 279 F.3d 901, 904 (10th Cir. 2002).
Discussion
Plaintiff contends that defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his race by failing to place him with defendant's customer as a machine operator. As plaintiff has no direct evidence of discrimination, the court analyzes plaintiff's discrimination claim under the familiar burden-shifting framework first pronounced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). See Danville v. Regional Lab Corp., 292 F.3d 1246, 1249 (10th Cir. 2002). To establish a prima facie case in the failure to hire context, plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he applied and was qualified for a job for which defendant was seeking applicants; (3) despite his qualifications, plaintiff was rejected; and (4) after plaintiff's rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of plaintiff's qualifications. Garcia v. Pueblo Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1226 (10th Cir. 2000)).
For purposes of its motion for summary judgment, defendant concedes that plaintiff has established the first three elements of his prima facie case. According to defendant, summary judgment is nonetheless warranted because plaintiff cannot establish the fourth element of his prima facie case. The court agrees. Significantly, plaintiff stipulated in the pretrial order that defendant's customer notified defendant that it no longer needed a temporary employee; that defendant thus stopped looking for a temporary employee for that machine operator position; and that defendant did not place anyone in the job for which plaintiff applied. These stipulations, then, compel the conclusion that defendant did not continue to seek applicants from persons of plaintiff's qualifications and, in fact, never filled the position. Moreover, in his papers, plaintiff has set forth no argument or evidence suggesting that defendant did continue seeking applicants or that defendant did eventually fill the position. On the record before the court, then, no reasonable jury could conclude that defendant continued seeking applicants for the machine operator position or that defendant hired someone else for the position. In such circumstances, summary judgment is appropriate.
Even assuming plaintiff could establish a prima facie case, the court would still grant defendant's motion as plaintiff has failed to come forward with any evidence suggesting that defendant's proffered reason for its decision not to place plaintiff in the position-defendant's customer advising defendant that it no longer needed a temporary employee-is pretextual. See Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1229-30 (under McDonnell Douglas paradigm, once defendant provides a facially nondiscriminatory reason for its action, plaintiff can withstand a summary judgment motion by presenting evidence that defendant's proffered reason is pretextual). Simply put, there is no evidence that defendant's customer did not in fact withdraw its request for a temporary employee and there is no evidence that defendant failed to place plaintiff in the machine operator position for any reason other than the fact that its customer withdrew the request for a temporary employee. Summary judgment, then, is appropriate for this reason as well.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. #31) is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.