Cordova v. State Farm Insurance Companies

Citations: 124 F.3d 1145; 97 Daily Journal DAR 11671; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7195; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23555; 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,991; 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1377Docket: No. 96-15867

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 8, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Denise Cordova, a former claims representative at State Farm Insurance, appeals a district court's summary judgment in her Title VII discrimination lawsuit, claiming denial of a trainee agent position based on her national origin and sex. The appellate court reviews the summary judgment de novo, assessing whether genuine issues of material fact exist and if the law was correctly applied.

Cordova, a Mexican-American woman, applied for the trainee agent position after five years with State Farm. Agency Manager John Raker selected four final candidates: Brian LaBuff (Native American male), Terry Carmona (white female), Art Davis (Asian male), and Cordova. Raker was required to recruit from a protected class. He first offered the position to LaBuff, who declined, then to Carmona, who accepted. Raker informed Cordova that LaBuff was chosen due to his real estate sales experience, although he later claimed Cordova was the third most qualified candidate. 

When Cordova inquired about her rejection, Vice President Gallagher explained that the position went to a female single mother who had worked her way through college. Cordova contended that her insurance experience should have made her the top candidate, citing a precedent of a candidate with no sales experience being hired and a subsequent policy requiring agent trainees to be internal candidates. 

Cordova presented evidence of discriminatory intent, including Raker's remark during her interview about not considering white males and an affidavit from Carmona recalling Raker's derogatory comment about a Hispanic agent. Raker denied making the statement. State Farm defended its selection process, citing LaBuff's educational and professional background and Carmona's determination and financial stability as key reasons for their choices.

Cordova argues that the reasons provided by State Farm for her rejection are pretextual, citing Raker's derogatory comments about Mexicans and his aversion to minority hiring as evidence of discriminatory intent. She highlights that Carmona did not confirm any discussions about financial support from her father, nor did she clarify whether she discussed her own financial situation with Raker. Furthermore, Cordova notes that 18 months after her rejection, State Farm implemented a policy to hire only current employees as agent trainees, a criterion that she met. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm, concluding that Cordova did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination as defined by the McDonnell Douglas framework. The court found that the only evidence of discriminatory animus—a comment by Raker referring to Maldonado as a "dumb Mexican"—was insufficient to infer unlawful discrimination.

To establish a prima facie case under Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) membership in a protected class, (2) qualification and application for the position, (3) rejection despite qualifications, and (4) the position remaining open with continued recruitment for similar qualifications. The burden of proof is minimal. Cordova met these criteria, showing she is in a protected class, was rejected for a qualified position, and that State Farm continued to seek other candidates. The district court's reliance on Hagans v. Clark to assert that Cordova failed to raise an inference of discrimination was deemed misplaced, as it misinterpreted the necessary standards for establishing a prima facie case in Title VII claims.

A plaintiff can prove a prima facie case of disparate treatment without adhering to the McDonnell Douglas framework by presenting evidence indicating that an employment decision was made based on discriminatory criteria under the Civil Rights Act. In this case, Cordova provided direct evidence of discrimination through Raker’s derogatory comments about her, including calling Maldonado a "dumb Mexican" and suggesting he was hired due to his minority status. Such remarks can infer discriminatory intent, as established in prior cases where similar comments indicated bias. Unlike isolated or ambiguous statements deemed insufficient for establishing discrimination, Raker's comments are egregious and clearly demonstrate discriminatory animus based on national origin. Furthermore, these comments, while made after the hiring decision, are relevant because Raker was involved in the hiring process, suggesting any bias he harbored could have influenced his decision. Cordova has established a prima facie case through both the McDonnell Douglas test and direct evidence of discrimination. Consequently, the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on a perceived failure to establish this case. Following this, the burden shifts to State Farm to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting Cordova's application. State Farm contends that its decision was based on the educational and personal attributes of the candidates considered, which will be assumed as a valid reason for the purpose of analysis.

State Farm's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting Cordova for the trainee agent position shifts the burden back to her to demonstrate that this reason is pretextual. Cordova must present specific facts indicating either a discriminatory motive or a lack of credibility in the employer's explanation. Despite the low threshold of evidence required to raise a genuine issue of fact, Cordova has provided sufficient evidence to challenge State Farm's rationale. This includes derogatory remarks allegedly made by Raker about a Mexican agent, Raker's expressed aversion to a minority-focused hiring policy, and statements regarding Carmona’s financial status that lack support. When all evidence is viewed favorably for Cordova, it suggests a genuine issue of material fact regarding potential unlawful discrimination by State Farm. Therefore, the decision is reversed and remanded for trial. Cordova meets the minimum qualifications for the position, having achieved an 'acceptable' score on the personality test and 99% on the take-home exam, along with extensive experience in the insurance sector. Although Carmona's recounting of Raker's comments could be questioned due to her own litigation against State Farm, it does not undermine the credibility of Cordova's claims. Furthermore, Cordova's lack of evidence for discrimination based on sex does not impede her national origin claim from proceeding past summary judgment.