Plaintiff Cloetta Brady sued defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri raising claims of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before the court is Defendant Walmart’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Brady worked at Walmart’s Neosho, Missouri store from 1987 to 2008. In 2007, while Brady was working as a Claims Associate, Walmart sought to fill an open Support Manager position. Walmart used its Career Preference online system to manage employee applications and hiring. To be qualified for a Support Manager position, an employee had to have taken and passed the Supervisory Leadership Assessment (SLA), unless they had been working as a Support Manager since Walmart implemented the SLA. Brady had not taken the SLA at the time the position was filled. Mike Harms, who had been a Support Manager since 1998, was ultimately hired for the position. Brady alleged that the Store Manager, Charles Cornelison, told her he gave the position to Harms because Harms “was sick and had a family to support.”
Evidentiary Disputes
The court addressed Brady’s motion for sanctions regarding a declaration submitted by Walmart’s records custodian, Marty Autrey. Brady argued that Walmart never disclosed Autrey’s identity but was now relying on his declaration to present extensive testimonial evidence. The court denied Brady’s motion, finding that Autrey’s declaration was properly limited to interpreting and explaining documents produced in discovery, and that Walmart was not required to disclose him by name.
Legal Analysis
Direct Evidence of Discrimination: The court found that Brady did not present direct evidence of discrimination. While Brady argued that Cornelison’s statement about Harms having “a family to support” was direct evidence of gender discrimination, the court concluded that the statement was gender-neutral in context and did not demonstrate animus without additional evidence.
Prima Facie Case of Discrimination: The court ruled that Brady failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Brady could not show that she applied for the position, was qualified for it, or was similarly situated to Harms. The uncontroverted facts showed that Brady had not taken the required SLA at the time the position was filled, while Harms was already working as a Support Manager.
Disparate Impact Claim: The court found that Brady failed to present statistical evidence or other evidence capable of supporting her disparate impact claim regarding Walmart’s policy of interviewing three candidates before filling a position.
Pay Discrimination Claim: The court granted summary judgment to Walmart on Brady’s pay discrimination claim, noting that Brady did not respond to Walmart’s arguments on this issue.
The court granted Walmart’s motion for summary judgment on all of Brady’s claims and denied as moot Walmart’s motion to exclude Brady’s expert witness.
Schrag on Law 