{ "id": 8521529, "name": "ROSEMARIE L. GADSON v. NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION", "name_abbreviation": "Gadson v. North Carolina Memorial Hospital", "decision_date": "1990-06-19", "docket_number": "No. 8910SC889", "first_page": "169", "last_page": "173", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "99 N.C. App. 169" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "759 F.2d 355", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 388188 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/759/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 S.E.2d 862", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4736704, 4734882, 4738767, 4739771, 4732061 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0507-03", "/nc/318/0507-02", "/nc/318/0507-01", "/nc/318/0507-05", "/nc/318/0507-04" ] }, { "cite": "342 S.E.2d 914", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "919" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 N.C. App. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523825 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "344" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/80/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E.2d 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4707236 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "141" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 126-36", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 480, "char_count": 10956, "ocr_confidence": 0.759, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07, "percentile": 0.7505468465536022 }, "sha256": "9c087e1360bbe5bd17f1b124f75a256ba9ca7d358776905cb0f42157c8e1a10f", "simhash": "1:eb6243ca71370f36", "word_count": 1628 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:52.620321+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHNSON and Orr concur." ], "parties": [ "ROSEMARIE L. GADSON v. NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 126-36 in pertinent part provides:\n\u201cAny State employee . . . who has reason to believe that . . . promotion . . . was denied him ... in retaliation for opposition to alleged discrimination . . . shall have the right to appeal directly to the State Personnel Commission.\u201d \u201cThe ultimate purpose of G.S. 126-36, G.S. 143-422.2, and Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000(e), et seq.) is the same; that is, the elimination of discriminatory practices in employment.\u201d Dept. of Correction v. Gibson, 308 N.C. 131, 141, 301 S.E.2d 78, 85 (1983).\nPetitioner does not dispute any of the Commission\u2019s findings of fact, nor does she dispute the conclusions of law regarding her prima facie case of retaliation and the Hospital\u2019s showing of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its personnel decision. Therefore, the question raised by petitioner\u2019s primary assignment of error is whether the Commission erred in concluding that petitioner failed to show that the Hospital\u2019s stated reasons were merely a pretext for retaliation.\nPetitioner contends the Commission\u2019s order was \u201c[unsupported by substantial evidence ... in view of the entire record as submitted.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51(b)(5). The \u201cwhole record\u201d test requires this Court to consider all the evidence, both that which supports the Commission\u2019s decision and that which detracts from it. Leiphart v. N.C. School of the Arts, 80 N.C. App. 339, 344, 342 S.E.2d 914, 919, cert. denied, 318 N.C. 507, 349 S.E.2d 862 (1986). Gadson argues that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Hospital\u2019s stated reasons for not promoting her were pretextual because the Hospital had weighted the hiring process and selection criteria against her. Specifically, she argues that the Hospital underemphasized her telecommunications experience outside the Hospital, her supervisory experience at the Hospital, and evaluations of her job performance as a MCTS I, while overemphasizing Freeland\u2019s experience in the Communications Center. She also argues that the Hospital considered her tardiness, but did not consider Freeland\u2019s behavior problems.\nThere is, however, substantial evidence in the record that the Hospital had legitimate reasons for designing the selection criteria as it did and that, therefore, the Hospital\u2019s stated reasons for its decision were not a pretext for discrimination. Williams testified that the size and complexity of the Hospital made experience at the Hospital a legitimate consideration in filling the MCTS II position. Melvin testified that any supervisory experience Gadson acquired between 1975 and 1980 was not given more weight because the department was smaller and less complex at that time. Similarly, Freeland\u2019s experience in the Communications Center was weighted heavily because most of it was after 1981, when the Center installed more sophisticated equipment and the duties of Center personnel were expanded. Melvin testified that the differences in the applicants\u2019 job performance evaluations were not significant because both received high ratings and any slight differences were attributable to different supervisors\u2019 evaluation styles. Finally, there was no evidence that the Hospital knew, at the time of the promotion decision, of Freeland\u2019s alleged mood swings, so these behavior problems could not have been considered. Gadson\u2019s tardiness was, however, documented by the Hospital and was considered in making the promotion decision. Moreover, evidence showed that in 1985, eight years after Gadson had filed and prevailed on a grievance alleging racial discrimination by Melvin, the Communications Department Director, he approved the hiring of Gadson as a MCTS I. Petitioner offers no explanation for why Melvin would retaliate against her in 1987 for her 1977 opposition to discrimination when he did not do so in 1985.\nFrom the whole record, substantial evidence supports the Commission\u2019s conclusion that the Hospital\u2019s stated reasons were legitimate and not a pretext for discrimination. Conversely, there is lacking substantial evidence that retaliation for past opposition to discrimination was the Hospital\u2019s \u201cpredominant reason,\u201d see Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355 (1985), for denying Gadson the promotion.\nPetitioner makes two further assignments of error under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51. She contends first that the Personnel Commission heard new evidence after receiving the A.L.J.\u2019s recommended decision, and second, that the agency did not state the specific reasons for not adopting the A.L.J.\u2019s recommended decision. We reject both these arguments. First, the Commission rejected the A.L.J.\u2019s conclusion that the Hospital\u2019s reasons for not promoting Gadson were pretextual by stating in part that \u201csaid conclusion is inconsistent with prior decisions of this Commission.\u201d This statement in no way shows the Commission considered new evidence after receiving the A.L.J.\u2019s recommended decision. Second, the Commission stated that Gadson had failed to carry the burden of showing that the Hospital\u2019s reasons for not promoting her were pretextual and discussed the shortcomings of Gadson\u2019s evidence. This is a sufficient statement of specific reasons for rejecting the A.L.J.\u2019s recommended decision.\nPetitioner\u2019s remaining assignments of error essentially repeat the substance of those already reviewed and we reject them without further discussion.\nNo error.\nJudges JOHNSON and Orr concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Broughton, Wilkins & Webb, by William Woodward Webb, for petitioner appellant.", "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General J. Charles Waldrup, for the respondent appellee Hospital." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROSEMARIE L. GADSON v. NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION\nNo. 8910SC889\n(Filed 19 June 1990)\nState \u00a7 12 (NCI3d) \u2014 promotion of one employee over another \u2014no retaliation for earlier discrimination grievance\nThe State Personnel Commission did not err in concluding that petitioner failed to show that respondent hospital\u2019s stated reasons for promoting another employee over her were merely a pretext for petitioner\u2019s having prevailed in a racial discrimination claim against respondent ten years earlier, sinc\u00e9 respondent had legitimate reasons for designing the selection criteria as it did; size and complexity of respondent hospital made experience there a legitimate consideration in filling the position so that petitioner\u2019s experience in other employment was not considered; any supervisory experience petitioner acquired between 1975 and 1980 was not given more weight because the department was smaller and less complex at the time; experience of the employee who was promoted was weighted heavily because most of it was after 1981 when the department installed more sophisticated equipment and the duties of department personnel were expanded; differences in the applicants\u2019 job performance evaluations were not significant; there was no evidence that respondent knew, at the time of the promotion decision, of the other employee\u2019s alleged mood swings and so this could not be considered in the decision; petitioner\u2019s tardiness was considered in making the promotion decision; and eight years after petitioner had filed and prevailed on a grievance alleging racial discrimination by the department director, he rehired petitioner in another position.\nAm Jur 2d, Job Discrimination \u00a7\u00a7 129, 132, 146, 147, 149, 150, 747, 754.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from judgment entered 25 May 1989 by Judge James H. Pou Bailey in WAKE County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 March 1990.\nThis appeal involves respondent North Carolina Memorial Hospital\u2019s decision in 1987 to deny a promotion to petitioner Rosemarie L. Gadson, a black woman who prevailed in a racial discrimination claim against the Hospital. She now claims the Hospital\u2019s decision not to promote her in 1987 was in retaliation for her 1977 grievance.\nIn 1977, after several years in the Hospital\u2019s Communications Center, Gadson was denied a promotion to the position of Communications Center Supervisor. The position' was awarded to a white woman. Andrew Melvin, Director of the Hospital\u2019s Communications Department, had made the personnel decision. On hearing Gadson\u2019s grievance, the Personnel Commission found that Gadson had been denied the 1977 promotion because of racial discrimination and awarded her back pay and attorney\u2019s fees. Gadson continued to work in the Communications Department until September 1980, when she moved out of state with her family.\nIn August 1985, Gadson returned to North Carolina. Beverly Williams, the Medical Center Telecommunications Supervisor, rehired Gadson as a Medical Center Telecommunications Specialist I (MCTS I). Melvin, who was still Director of the Communications Department, approved Williams\u2019 decision to rehire Gadson.\nIn March 1987, Gadson and another MCTS I, Wendy L. Freeland, applied for a promotion to MCTS II, a supervisory position. Gadson and Freeland were the only two applicants for the position. Williams, the Medical Center Telecommunications Supervisor, was responsible for filling the vacant MCTS II position. She drafted selection criteria and questions for the applicants and interviewed each applicant. Melvin, the Communications Center Director, reviewed the selection criteria and questions, participated in each applicant\u2019s interview, and reviewed each applicant\u2019s written materials. After conferring with Melvin and two members of the Personnel Department, Williams promoted Freeland to MCTS II.\nIn October 1987, Gadson filed a grievance against the Hospital alleging that she had been unfairly denied the promotion. On 27 April 1988, Gadson\u2019s case was heard by an Administrative Law Judge. The recommended decision of the A.L.J. concluded that Gadson had made a prima facie showing of retaliation and that the Hospital had shown legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for promoting Freeland rather than Gadson. The A.L.J. then concluded that the Hospital\u2019s stated nondiscriminatory reasons were only a pretext for retaliation, stating that the hiring process and selection criteria were slanted against Gadson.\nThe State Personnel Commission adopted all of the A.LJ.\u2019s findings of fact and those conclusions of law regarding Gadson\u2019s prima facie case of retaliation and the Hospital\u2019s showing of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. However, the Commission disagreed with the A.L.J.\u2019s conclusion that \u201cbut for the earlier race discrimination case, Petitioner would have been chosen above Ms. Freeland for the promotion to MCTS II.\u201d Instead, the Commission concluded that petitioner had failed to carry her burden of proving that the Hospital\u2019s stated reasons were merely a pretext for retaliation for past protected activity. Accordingly, the Commission upheld the Hospital\u2019s decision not to promote Gadson to MCTS II. On appeal, the superior court affirmed the Personnel Commission\u2019s decision. Petitioner appeals.\nBroughton, Wilkins & Webb, by William Woodward Webb, for petitioner appellant.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General J. Charles Waldrup, for the respondent appellee Hospital." }, "file_name": "0169-01", "first_page_order": 199, "last_page_order": 203 }