IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-50522
_____________________
CHRISTINE MATO,
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
versus
JACK BALDAUF, DR.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
JACK BALDAUF, DR.; JEFF FOX, DR.;
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM;
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY;TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAM,
Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
October 9, 2001
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
A jury found that Texas A&M University terminated Christine
Mato’s employment in retaliation for helping female employees file
sexual harassment complaints, and then awarded Mato approximately
$216,000 for lost wages and $250,000 for pain and suffering. The
1
district court entered judgment and awarded Mato attorneys’ fees
and costs in the amount of $50,000, which was less than one-fourth
of what she had requested. Both parties have appealed. Texas A&M
contends that (1) Mato failed to provide sufficient evidence of a
causal connection between her protected Title VII activity and her
discharge from employment; and (2) Mato’s evidence regarding pain
and suffering cannot justify the size of the jury’s mental anguish
award. Mato has filed a cross-appeal, contending that the district
court abused its discretion by reducing her request for attorney’s
fees. We conclude that Mato has failed to present sufficient
evidence to support a causal connection between her protected
activity and her discharge. We therefore reverse and remand for
entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint.
I
Texas A&M University coordinates the science operations for
the Ocean Drilling Program (“ODP”). ODP is an international
research project whose drilling vessel sails around the world and
obtains core samples from the ocean floor.
Christine Mato was ODP’s “Supervisor of Curation and
Repositories” from 1984 to 1996. Mato’s primary responsibilities
were archiving ODP’s collection of core samples and reviewing
scientists’ requests to conduct research on certain samples.
According to the 1996 organizational chart, Mato was directly
responsible to Dr. Russ Merrill, the “Manager of Information
2
Services and Curation.” It is generally agreed, however, that
Merrill focused on information services and delegated almost all
his curatorial duties to Mato.
Between 1990 and 1995, Mato helped five female co-workers
file internal sexual harassment complaints against certain members
of ODP staff. Although most of the allegations were relatively
non-serious (such as crude humor), one complaint against a drilling
superintendent on the ship led to a serious internal investigation
of sexual harassment at ODP.
Mato testified that Rick McPherson, a Texas A&M administrator
who supervised personnel functions at ODP, told her that the report
was an embarrassment to the program and that she would not receive
any pay raises in the future. (McPherson denies making these
statements, but we must assume the jury found otherwise.) Indeed,
Mato did not receive a raise between 1993 and 1996. Although she
had been informed that salaries were frozen, Mato testified that
some male employees at ODP had received pay raises during this
period.
In 1993, Mato complained that Jack Baldauf, the associate
director at ODP, was not responding in a timely manner to one of
the allegations of sexual harassment. Baldauf admitted at trial
that he was “frustrated” with Mato’s criticism because he believed
he was pursuing the matter expeditiously.
3
Mato contends that, as a result of her involvement in these
five incidents of sexual harassment between 1990 and 1995, her
employment was terminated when ODP was reorganized in December
1996.
The reorganization plan was developed by Jeff Fox, who became
the director of ODP in June 1995. The evidence is undisputed that
the international committee that oversees ODP believed the program
was operating inefficiently. Throughout late 1995 and early 1996,
Fox circulated memoranda to his managers and staff, warning them
that budget cuts were likely.
In June 1996, Fox decided to thoroughly reorganize ODP in
order to make the program more efficient and economical. Fox hired
a consulting firm, American Management Consultants (“AMC”), to
study ODP and to recommend changes. Fox placed Jack Baldauf in
charge of carrying out the reorganization process. At Fox’s
request, Baldauf was assisted by Jan Radle, an assistant to Rick
McPherson.
Baldauf testified that he worked closely with Fox on the
reorganization plan. According to Baldauf, Fox decided at the
outset that it was necessary to consolidate the curatorial
positions occupied by Mato and Dr. Merrill and to require the new
curator to have a Ph.D. Baldauf testified that Fox never sought
his advice regarding this decision; instead, Fox made the decision
himself at a very early stage in the process. Fox himself
4
testified without contradiction, and without challenge, that the
decision to require a Ph.D. for the new curator position was his,
and his alone. He further testified without contradiction, and
without challenge, that he had no discussions with Baldauf or
McPherson about the Ph.D. requirement before making the decision.
James Allen, who headed the search committee for the new curator,
testified that Fox was responsible for the reorganization plan, and
that Baldauf was merely carrying out a plan that had already been
formulated.
As Baldauf’s assistant during the reorganization period, Jan
Radle helped develop Position Analysis Questionnaires (“PAQs”), or
job descriptions, for positions within ODP. Radle testified that
their initial description of the new curator position was virtually
identical to the job description for the “Supervisor of Curation
and Repositories” (Mato’s position), except that the new curator
would be required to have a Ph.D.
Radle was concerned that the new Ph.D. requirement could be
perceived as targeting Mato, who has only a bachelor’s degree and
some graduate study. When Radle voiced her concerns to Baldauf and
Fox, they told her directly that Mato would not become the new
curator. Radle also testified that McPherson wanted to be kept
abreast of the reorganization and that he was pleased when she told
him about the impending changes in the curatorial division.
After formulating the PAQ for the new curator position, Radle
5
then forwarded the proposed PAQ to Karen Chavis at the Texas A&M
Human Resources department. Chavis testified that she wondered why
the ODP was creating a new curatorial position with duties very
similar to those performed by Mato, who apparently was going to be
laid off. Chavis then called a “risk assessment” meeting with Fox
and Baldauf.
Baldauf testified that during this interview with Human
Resources, Fox explained that he thought the Ph.D. requirement was
necessary in light of ODP’s focus on research and science
operations. Moreover, Fox pointed out that almost all curators at
similar repository programs hold a Ph.D., regardless of whether a
Ph.D. is specifically required in the job description.
Nevertheless, the Human Resources representatives advised Fox and
Baldauf to determine the job requirements for curators in similar
programs.
At Baldauf’s request, Radle and Dr. Merrill contacted the NASA
Moon Rocks program to determine whether NASA’s curators were
required to hold a Ph.D. Baldauf testified that Merrill told him
that a Ph.D. was required at NASA. Radle testified, however, that
a representative from NASA said that a Ph.D. was “preferred” but
not required because a strict Ph.D. requirement would have excluded
some of the people already serving as NASA curators. We must
assume the jury believed Radle’s version.
Radle also testified that after the risk assessment meeting,
6
Baldauf “massaged” the job description to make the Ph.D.
requirement appear more justifiable. At some point, Baldauf added
several new duties (such as developing a long-range sample
distribution policy) that required “interacting with the science
community” and exercising “proper scientific oversight” over the
technical staff.
By the end of October 1996, Baldauf and Radle had prepared the
final PAQ for the new curator position, and the Human Resources
department approved the proposed Ph.D. requirement.
During this same period from June to October, the consultants
from AMC were preparing their recommendations. In a lengthy report
submitted on November 1, 1996, AMC suggested that the curation
services be more closely aligned with the Science Operations
division of ODP. The report noted that “Management of the curation
function must carefully balance providing the maximum science that
can be obtained from the [core samples] while preserving them for
decades until new scientific technology enables even more
information to be gleaned. The head of this function must combine
in-depth scientific knowledge with adroit management and people
skills to achieve this balance.” AMC’s first recommendation,
therefore, was to “Reassign Curation Services to Science Operations
with a scientist as the division head.” Although the consultants’
report does not mention a Ph.D. requirement, Fox interpreted AMC’s
recommendation for a “scientist” to require a Ph.D.-credentialed
7
research scientist who had published extensively in peer-reviewed
journals. On cross-examination, Mato attempted to discredit the
consultants’ recommendation by gaining an admission from Fox that
he had met with the consultants regularly as they were conducting
their research and developing their report.
ODP’s reorganization plan was made public in December 1996.
The plan eliminated 14 positions, created 5 positions, modified 16
positions, and relocated 40 positions within the program. (To put
the scope of the reorganization in perspective, we note that ODP
had approximately 160 employees as of mid-1996.)
The plan eliminated the positions held by Merrill and Mato.
Dr. Merrill remained at the ODP to head the information services
division, while Mato was ineligible for the newly created position
of curator because she did not have a Ph.D. Several of Mato’s
witnesses -- such as Dr. Jamie Allan, the acting director of
science operations; and Dr. Phillip Rabinowitz, the former director
of ODP -- expressed the opinion that the Ph.D. requirement was
unnecessary because 80 to 90% of the new curator’s duties were
identical to those that Mato had performed.
The Ph.D. requirement notwithstanding, Mato applied for the
new curator position but was not considered for the job. The
following month, the ODP hired a research scientist with a Ph.D.,
Dr. John Firth, as its new curator.
II
8
In December 1998, Mato filed this employment discrimination
action against Jeff Fox, Jack Baldauf, Rick McPherson, the Texas
A&M University System, Texas A&M University, and the University’s
Ocean Drilling Program. The case went to trial in February 2000.
The district court entered judgment as a matter of law for the
defendants on Mato’s Equal Pay Act claim. By the time the case was
presented to the jury, only one defendant (Texas A&M University)
and two Title VII claims (sex discrimination and retaliation)
remained.
The jury found no discrimination based on sex, but it did find
that University officials discharged Mato in retaliation for
helping other female employees file sexual harassment claims. The
jury awarded Mato approximately $216,000 in compensatory damages
and $250,000 for pain and suffering.
The district court modified the judgment by adding prejudgment
interest to a back pay award and reducing the award slightly to
comply with Title VII statutory caps. The district court denied
Texas A&M’s motion for a new trial as well as its motion to reduce
the jury award. Mato then filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees
and costs in excess of $200,000, but the district court awarded
only $50,047.76. The University appeals the jury’s verdict on
retaliation and the damages award. Mato cross-appeals as to the
attorney’s fee award, but not as to the judgment as a matter of law
on her Equal Pay Act claim or as to the verdict on her sex
9
discrimination claim.
III
We need only resolve the first issue presented on appeal,
whether Mato introduced sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find
a causal connection between her protected activities and her
discharge from employment.
A
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate
against an employee “because [that employee] has opposed any
practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter .
. . .” 42 U.S.C. S 2000e-3(a). To prevail on her Title VII
retaliation claim, Mato had to prove, inter alia, that a causal
connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action. See Messer v. Meno, 130 F.3d 130, 140 (5th Cir.
1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1067 (1999). We will therefore focus
on the protected activity that she proved: encouraging and
assisting other women to file sexual harassment complaints; and on
the retaliation she claims: requiring a Ph.D. for the curator’s
position and the consequential termination of her employment. Mato
had the burden, then, of proving she would not have been terminated
“but for” her helping other women file grievances based on sexual
harassment. See Seaman v. CSPH, Inc., 179 F.3d 297, 301 (5th Cir.
1999); Rubinstein v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 218 F.3d
392, 402-03 (5th Cir. 2000)(“[E]ven if a plaintiff’s protected
10
conduct is a substantial element in a defendant’s decision to
terminate an employee, no liability for unlawful retaliation arises
if the employee would have been terminated even in the absence of
the protected conduct.”), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 1393 (2001).
In establishing this causal connection, Mato must first
identify who made the decision that resulted in her termination.
For example, Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 300 (5th Cir.
1996), involved an executive officer, on the one hand, with the
final authority to fire employees but who had no retaliatory animus
toward the plaintiff; and, on the other hand, intermediate
supervisors who appeared to have had an improper retaliatory intent
and who recommended that an employee be fired. We explained that
the causal link between the protected conduct and termination is
broken where the official with final authority to fire employees
conducts an “independent investigation” in the course of reaching
his or her decision. Id. at 307. The causal link is not broken,
however, where the decision-maker “rubber-stamps” the firing
recommendation of subordinates; in such cases, we say that the
decision-maker acts as a conduit of the subordinates’ improper
motive. Id.; see also Russell v. McKinney Hospital Venture, 235
F.3d 219, 226-27 (5th Cir. 2000) (“If the [plaintiff] can
demonstrate that others had influence or leverage over the official
decisionmaker, . . . it is proper to impute their discriminatory
[or retaliatory] attitudes to the formal decisionmaker.”). Of
11
course, the degree to which the executive’s decision was based on
his or her own independent evaluation is a question of fact. Long,
88 F.3d at 307.
Texas A&M contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law because Mato presented insufficient evidence of causation.
We will disturb a jury verdict, however, only if we conclude that,
after viewing the trial record in the light most favorable to the
verdict, there is no “‘legally sufficient evidentiary basis’ for a
reasonable jury to have found for the prevailing party.” Stokes v.
Emerson Elec. Co., 217 F.3d 353, 356 (5th Cir. 2000)(quoting Boeing
Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)(en banc)).
B
In the light of Long v. Eastfield College, the first step is
to determine whether Fox decided independently that the new curator
should be required to have a Ph.D., or whether Fox’s decision
regarding the Ph.D. requirement resulted from the influence of
Baldauf and McPherson, who, we shall assume, were motivated by
retaliatory animus.
According to the district court, “It was Mato’s theory that at
least two of these A&M representatives -- McPherson and Baldauf
(Fox’s right-hand man in planning the ODP reorganization) -- were
in fact ‘responsible for her discharge’ because they successfully
12
prevailed upon Fox to terminate Mato.” Stated more precisely,
perhaps, Mato contends that they prevailed upon Fox to insist upon
the Ph.D. requirement to create a pretext for terminating Mato.
But from a review of the record, this does not appear to be the
case. We agree that Mato produced ample evidence that Baldauf and
McPherson were significantly responsible for developing and
implementing the decisions of Fox during the reorganization
process. But Mato has produced no evidence that would allow a jury
to conclude that either of them were responsible for the decision
to require the new curator to have a Ph.D.
Mato contends that she presented considerable evidence that
Baldauf and McPherson were indeed responsible for her discharge.
Mato relies exclusively on Jan Radle’s testimony that Baldauf was
“in charge of ODP’s reorganization activities”; that Baldauf helped
develop the PAQ for the new curator position and “massaged” the job
description after meeting with Human Resources; and that McPherson
appeared pleased with the results of the reorganization plan.
Radle’s testimony, however, does no more than merely confirm what
is essentially undisputed and we fully accept for the purposes of
our analysis: that Baldauf and (to a much lesser extent) McPherson
were involved in the reorganization process. But we may not
extrapolate simply from their involvement in the process that
Baldauf and McPherson were responsible for Mato’s termination.
Radle’s testimony, in other words, does not permit a jury to infer
13
that Baldauf and McPherson exercised such influence over Fox that
he was only a conduit for their improper retaliatory motives.
In fact, Radle’s testimony on the question of who made the
relevant employment decision is consistent with the unequivocal
testimony of Baldauf and Fox -- that Fox made the decisions
regarding the curatorial positions quite early in the
reorganization process and that Fox never consulted with Baldauf
before deciding to require a Ph.D. for the new curator position.
Indeed, there is no evidence that contradicts the testimony that
the idea to require a Ph.D. for the position of curator originated
with Fox and Fox alone. The undisputed testimony simply
established that Fox placed Baldauf in charge of carrying out his
mandates, including the Ph.D. requirement. In this connection, it
was Baldauf’s responsibility to develop the necessary job
descriptions to accommodate Fox’s reorganization plans.
To be sure, the jury may have disbelieved much of the
testimony of Fox and Baldauf. It is settled, however, that
“disbelief of a witness’s testimony is not sufficient to carry a
plaintiff’s burden.” Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958,
965 (5th Cir. 1995). As we have indicated, no witness testified,
nor has Mato seriously suggested, that the requirement for the
Ph.D. originated with anyone other than Fox. A reasonable fact
finder could draw only one inference from the evidence in this
record: Dr. Jeff Fox, ODP’s director, independently made the
14
initial and basic decision that adversely affected Christine Mato
-- that is, to consolidate the curatorial positions and require
that the new curator hold a Ph.D.
C
The next question, then, is whether Mato presented sufficient
evidence that her protected activities had the necessary causal
connection to Fox’s ultimate decision to implement the Ph.D.
requirement, which resulted in Mato’s termination. Stated in terms
of the relevant case law, does the evidence permit a finding that
“but for” Mato’s protected activities, Fox would not have required
a Ph.D. for the curator’s position?
Mato presented no direct evidence of retaliatory animus on the
part of Fox. Mato contends, though, that a jury could have
inferred the fact of retaliation from the falsity of Texas A&M’s
proffered explanation for terminating Mato’s employment. This
court has held that the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
framework applies in Title VII retaliation cases. See Rios v.
Rossotti, 252 F.3d 375, 380 (5th Cir. 2001); Rubinstein, 218 F.3d
at 401-02. As the Supreme Court explained in Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148 (2000), a plaintiff must
present “sufficient evidence” for a jury to reasonably conclude
that the employer’s justification is unworthy of credence and is a
pretext for discrimination or retaliation. See Crawford v. Formosa
15
Plastics Corp., 234 F.3d 899, 902-03 (5th Cir. 2000).
Texas A&M’s asserted reason for terminating Mato’s employment
may be summarized as follows. Because of pressure to improve its
operations and cut its budget, ODP’s new director formulated a
comprehensive reorganization plan. The overriding theme of Fox’s
reorganization plan was its focus on science operations. Along
these lines, Fox decided that the two curatorial positions needed
to be consolidated and that the department should be headed by a
Ph.D.-credentialed research scientist. A consulting firm reached
virtually the same conclusion. Because Mato was not a research
scientist who had earned a Ph.D., she was not eligible for the new
curatorial position.
A review of the record makes plain that Mato failed to present
sufficient evidence that would allow a jury to conclude that this
reorganizational decision was phony and a pretext to retaliate
against Mato. Mato’s argument focuses on her belief that a Ph.D.
was not required because she had performed almost all of the same
duties for the previous twelve years. It is certainly true that
Mato’s witnesses established that 80 to 90% of the new curator’s
duties were identical to those performed by Mato and that, in their
opinion, the Ph.D. requirement was unnecessary. However, we have
repeatedly and emphatically stated that anti-discrimination laws
“are not vehicles for judicial second-guessing of business
decisions.” Deines v. Texas Dept. of Protective & Regulatory
16
Serv., 164 F.3d 277, 281 (5th Cir. 1999). In this case, Mato and
her witnesses have done nothing more than register their
disagreement with Fox’s business plans for ODP.
Moreover, Mato failed to present any evidence that Fox even
knew that Mato had helped female co-workers file sexual harassment
claims. The record indicates that all five incidents of sexual
harassment occurred between 1991 and early 1995 -- before Fox
became the director of ODP. Fox testified that neither Baldauf nor
McPherson had discussed Mato’s activities with him, and Mato failed
to show that Fox had learned about Mato’s activities from any other
source. Mato thus presented no evidence from which a jury could
reasonably infer that Fox knew about the sexual harassment
complaints that Mato had helped file.
A final consideration is the period of time that elapsed
between the last filing of a sexual harassment complaint and the
reorganization plan that led to Mato’s termination. The fact that
approximately a year and a half passed between the last sexual
harassment complaint and Mato’s termination does not support an
inference of retaliation. See, e.g., Grizzle v. Travelers Health
Network, Inc., 14 F.3d 261, 268 (5th Cir. 1994)(noting that a ten-
month lapse between the plaintiff’s complaint and her termination
from employment “suggests that a retaliatory motive was highly
unlikely”).
In sum, Mato has fallen short of presenting sufficient
17
evidence to permit a jury to reasonably infer that ODP’s
justification for the Ph.D. requirement is unworthy of credence,
that is, phony, and a pretext for retaliation. See Crawford, 234
F.3d at 903. The evidence does not support a finding that “but
for” Mato’s protected activities, Fox would not have consolidated
the curatorial positions and required the new curator to hold a
Ph.D.
IV
Having studied the full trial record, and viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that Texas
A&M was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Mato
presented insufficient evidence of a causal connection between her
protected Title VII activities and her termination from employment.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED for entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint.
R E V E R S E D .
18