Summary
ordering disclosure of employee comparator personnel files because information in those files is relevant to the plaintiff's claim that individuals with similar qualifications were treated differently from the plaintiff
Summary of this case from U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Rests.Opinion
No. 5:98-CV-695-BR(2)
January 13, 2000
ORDER
In this case Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") by refusing to interview her for promotions after she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case is now before the Court on Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to Compel and For Sanctions. Defendant has responded to this motion, and it is ripe for ruling.
Plaintiff seeks the personnel files for two Northern Telecom (Nortel) employees, Marsha Ford and Thereasa Freeman, and the job files for positions that Ford and Freeman were hired to fill in 1996 or 1997. Plaintiff requested these documents in her Second Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production of Documents in September 1999, but Defendant has repeatedly refused to produce them. (Pl.'s Mot. Ex. P).
Freeman and Ford each applied and were hired for the position of "DMS-10 Technologist" at Nortel in 1996 or 1997. At the time she applied to be a DMS-10 Technologist, Marsha Ford held the same position (Senior Support Specialist in ETAS) as Plaintiff did when Plaintiff later applied to be a DMS-10 Technologist. (Pl.'s Mot. Ex. Q. (Ken Cameron Dep. at 52). When Thereasa Freeman applied to be a DMS-10 Technologist, she was a secretary in ETAS, the same department Plaintiff was working in when Plaintiff later applied to be a DMS-10 Technologist. (Id.). Plaintiff did not apply for these positions. (Def.'s Resp. to Fourth Mot. to Compel Ex. A (Moore Dep.) at 89-90). However, Plaintiff did apply to be a "DMS-10 Technologist" in March of 1997. (Def.'s Resp. Ex. A (Moore Dep. at 17)). Plaintiff was not interviewed for nor hired for this position, and Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against her by not hiring her for this position.
Plaintiff asserts that the DMS-10 positions for which Ford and Freeman were hired had the same job description and responsibilities as the DMS-10 position Plaintiff applied for in March 1997. (Pl.'s Mot. Ex. Q. (Wooling Dep. at 33, 55-6)). According to Plaintiff, this discredits Defendant's assertions that Plaintiff was not qualified to be a DMS-10 Technologist, since two persons from her department with equivalent or even lesser qualifications than Plaintiff were hired to fill a similar position just one year earlier.
In its Response to this Motion, Defendant reiterates that Plaintiff did not apply for the DMS-10 positions which Ford and Freeman were hired to fill. Defendant also states that Ford's and Freeman's qualifications cannot be compared with Plaintiff's because each position has a unique applicant pool, and "`candidates' qualifications can vary when the jobs are posted.'" (Def.'s Resp. at 6, quoting Ex. F (Cameron Dep. vol. II p. 21)).
A fair reading of the Motions and attached exhibits indicates that the issue of qualifications for the DMS-10 position, and particularly technical expertise, are central to Nortel's defense. Plaintiff, therefore, must show that she was qualified to be a DMS-10 technologist, and one way to do so is by proving that the skills which the hiring manager who interviewed her concluded she did not have were not actually required for the job, but were instead used as a pretext for not hiring Plaintiff. Evidence that persons without such skills had been hired to be DMS-10 technologists in the recent past bears directly on this issue.
Defendant fails to recognize that employees within a company who have the same job duties and mandatory qualifications may legitimately be compared with each other in discrimination cases. The fact that Plaintiff did not apply for the actual job openings which Ford and Freeman filled does not make Ford and Freeman invalid comparators. Since Ford and Freeman were hired for the same job classification as the one Plaintiff applied for (DMS-10 technologist), comparison between their qualifications and Plaintiff's qualifications is reasonable.
Of course, evidence may show that Plaintiff did not in fact possess the requisite qualifications to be a DMS-10 technologist, while Ford and Freeman did, or that the person who was hired instead of Plaintiff possessed superior qualifications. Regardless of what the facts may show, however, Plaintiff is entitled to seek discovery of all non-privileged evidence relevant to the subject matter of her job discrimination complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 26(b)(1).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel IS ALLOWED. Defendant IS ORDERED to produce to Plaintiff the job files for the DMS-10 Technologist positions for which Marsha Ford and Thereasa Freeman were hired and the personnel files for Ford and Freeman. Defendant must provide these materials to Plaintiff's counsel no later than 5 P.M. on Thursday, January 20, 2000. Defendant is also ORDERED to produce Kirk Wooley for deposition testimony regarding this evidence no later than Tuesday, January 25, 2000. The dispositive motion deadline, currently set for January 30, 2000, is not extended. Due to time constraints, a copy of this order will be served on counsel by fax. Each party is to bear its own costs of filing and responding to this Motion.