Straughter v. Vicksburg Warren Sch

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 1, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60992
ANNIE STRAUGHTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VICKSBURG WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi
(USDC No. 5:03-CV-224)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Annie Straughter appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of
Vicksburg Warren School District in her Title VII sex discrimination lawsuit, brought
after she was not promoted to principal of the District’s alternative school, a male
candidate (Charles Sanders) having been chosen. Reviewing the record de novo and

-- 1 of 4 --

2
applying the same legal standard as the district court, we affirm the district court’s
decision for the following reasons:
1. Straughter has failed to rebut or create a genuine issue of material fact
regarding each of the District’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons for not
promoting her from assistant principal to principal of the District’s Center
for Alternative Programs (CAPS).
2. As one of its reasons for hiring Sanders over Straughter, the District cites its
opinion that Sanders was the more qualified candidate for the job.
Straughter and Sanders had nearly identical academic credentials. Despite
having completed a key certification prior to application and having five
more years experience as a District assistant principal than Sanders,
Straughter has not shown that she was so clearly better qualified than
Sanders as to prove the District’s justification pretextual. Price v. Fed.
Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). Sanders’s additional
special education experience with other employers “could have reasonably
outweighed” Straughter’s certified status and longer tenure as assistant
principal. Id.
The fact that Straughter was ranked hirer than Sanders by a majority
of the recommendation committee after its initial interview does not
demonstrate that sex was a motivating factor in the District’s decision.
While the committee “scorecards” in evidence are ambiguous, by

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Straughter’s own interpretation of the ranking, at least one rejected male
candidate was also ranked higher than Sanders by the majority of
committee members.
The District also cites Straughter’s poor second interview along with
Sanders’s relatively more enthusiastic attitude and better working
relationships with the superintendents and other administrators as crucial in
the hiring decision. While Straughter asserts she does not remember the
particular incident raised by the District to demonstrate a lack of maturity in
work relationships, she does not deny problems with a fellow administrator
during the time she served as assistant principal at another campus.
Further,
we have recognized that an employer’s consideration of such subjective
criteria does not demonstrate pretext. Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., 332
F.3d 874, 882 (5th Cir. 2003).
4. While Straughter’s apparently commendable prior attendance record
permitted her to accrue significant leave time, she has failed to show that
the exercise of so many personal and sick days in the four years
immediately proceeding her application to be principal could not reasonably
have influenced the District’s decision against her. That the District had
not, prior to her application, expressed any concern about Straughter’s
absences is not highly probative. Even if the District did not regard her

-- 3 of 4 --

4
absences as problematic when she was assistant principal, Straughter offers
no evidence to suggest that the District could not reasonably consider such
absences problematic in a candidate for principal.
5. Straughter raised credible evidence that (1) the hiring superintendents
misinterpreted her complaints about the lack of proper procedures in
transferring students to CAPS, and (2) the fallout from a corporal
punishment incident was erroneously attributed to her conduct. However,
that the District relied on the possibly incorrect belief that Straughter was
negative about the CAPS program or that she was responsible for the
punishment incident does not create a fact issue as to the District’s
justification that Straughter lacked enthusiasm and leadership qualities. See
Bryant v. Compass Group USA. Inc., 413 F.3d 471, 478 (5th Cir. 2005)
(upholding termination based on non-discriminatory, though possibly
inaccurate, information).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --