Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DE MENT, District Judge. This cause is now before the court on twelve motions for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”). The plaintiffs in this consolidated action are either current or former employees of Wal-Mart store # 930 located in Montgomery, Alabama. The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart discriminated against them on the basis of race by breaching the terms and conditions of their employment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Because Wal-Mart’s motions involve similar legal issues and facts, the court will address the motions simultaneously. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law and the record as a whole, the court issues the following memorandum opinion. JURISDICTION Based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), the court properly exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue. Additionally, under Title VII and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) regulations, a plaintiff must satisfy two jurisdictional requirements before filing a complaint in federal court. The court finds that all plaintiffs, except Calandra Cherry and Caroline Glover, discussed infra, (1) timely filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and, (2) after receiving right-to-sue letters from the EEOC, timely instituted this action. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 798, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1822, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD On a motion for summary judgment, the court is to construe the evidence and factual inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Summary judgment can be entered on a claim only if it is shown “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As the Supreme Court has explained the summary judgment standard: [T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The trial court’s function at this juncture is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; see also Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 933 (11th Cir.1989). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of establishing, based on relevant “portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions in the file, together with affidavits, if any,’ ” that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. Once this initial demonstration under Rule 56(c) is made, the burden of production, not persuasion, shifts to the nonmoving party. The nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by [his or her] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). In meeting this burden the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is a metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Corp. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). That party must demonstrate that there is a “genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. An action is void of a material issue for trial “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Id. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356; see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510-11. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard The plaintiffs bring their discrimination claims under Title VII and/or § 1981, both of which prohibit racial discrimination in employment. Because both statutes require a showing of intentional discrimination, courts apply the same test for analyzing claims under Title VII and § 1981. Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 839 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80, 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994) (“[T]he allocation of burdens under Title VII applies to proving intentional discrimination under section 1981 as well.”) (citation omitted). In an action alleging disparate treatment under Title VII, a plaintiff must prove an intentional discriminatory motive by presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519-21, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2754, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); see e.g., Lee v. Russell County Bd. of Educ., 684 F.2d 769, 771-72 (11th Cir.1982). Absent direct evidence, a plaintiff can establish intentional discrimination under the three-part burden-shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and Texas Def't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Under the McDonnell Douglas and Burdine framework, the plaintiff first must raise an inference of race discrimination by establishing a prima facie case. Batey v. Stone, 24 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). The purpose of the prima facie ease is to show an adverse employment decision that resulted from a discriminatory motive. See Perryman v. Johnson Products Co., 698 F.2d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir.1983). Here, the individual plaintiffs have alleged discrimination in various facets of their employment at Wal-Mart, including promotions, terminations and work environments. Because the elements of the prima facie case vary depending upon the challenged employment decision, the court will discuss the prima facie standards separately when addressing the claims of each individual plaintiff. . If a plaintiff succeeds in showing a prima facie ease of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the adverse employment decision. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824. The defendant’s burden is “exceedingly light,” Perryman, 698 F.2d at 1142, as it “must merely proffer [race neutral] reasons, not prove them.” Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1019 (11th Cir.1994) (citation omitted) (brackets supplied). Once the defendant satisfies its burden of production, the McDonnell Douglas framework, with its presumptions and burdens, drops out of the ease, and the only inquiry becomes “whether [the] plaintiff has proven ‘that the employer intentionally discriminated against’ him because of his [race].” St. Mary’s, 509 U.S. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. To prove discrimination after the McDonnell Douglas framework drops out, a plaintiff can show (by either presentation of evidence or cross-examination of defendant’s witnesses) that the defendant’s proffered reason was a pretext for discrimination, “[b]ut a reason cannot be proved to be ‘a pretext for discrimination ’ unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason.” Id. at 515, 113 S.Ct. at 2752. Moreover, race must be “a determinative factor in the employer’s decision, though it need not have been the solé factor.” Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir.1987); see also Monroe v. United Air Lines, Inc., 736 F.2d 394, 402 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1004, 105 S.Ct. 1356, 1357, 84 L.Ed.2d 378 (1985) (circuit approval for “a determining factor” jury instruction); Cuddy v. Carmen, 694 F.2d 853, 857-58 (D.C.Cir.1982), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1034, 106 S.Ct. 597, 88 L.Ed.2d 576 (1985) (The plaintiff must “show by a preponderance of the evidence that age was ‘a determining factor’ in the employer’s decision” or that age “made a difference.”). In this case, Wal-Mart has submitted voluminous briefs detailing the reasons that the plaintiffs’ claims must fail. The briefs include extensive citations to the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs and also include various affidavits from Wal-Mart’s supervisors. In response, the plaintiffs submitted a single, twelve-page brief. The brief is in narrative form only and includes no citations to the record or evidence, as required by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order entered in this case on September 16, 1994. The plaintiffs merely state that the “[t]he evidence of record, including, but not limited to, the sworn averments submitted to the EEOC by affidavit establishes a prima facie ease of discrimination.” Pis’ Br. in Opp. to Summ. J., filed March 27,1995, at 11. Finding the plaintiffs’ submission completely inadequate to defeat Wal-Mart’s motions for summary judgment, the court, sua sponte, allowed the plaintiffs to submit additional evidence to rebut Wal-Mart’s motions. The court has, thus, generously allowed the plaintiffs “two bites at the apple.” The plaintiffs now have supplemented the record with declarations from each plaintiff. As discussed infra, seven of the twelve plaintiffs still have failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to their claims, primarily because their declarations are, for the most part, wholly conclusory. Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 557 (11th Cir.1984) (“[M]ere verification of a party’s own eonclu-sory allegations is not sufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment.”); see also Earley v. Champion Int’l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1084 (11th Cir.1990). Hence, the court has no option but to grant Wal-Mart’s motions for summary judgment as to seven of the plaintiffs. II. Findings of Fad and Conclusions of Law A. Kumasi Mants Plaintiff Kumasi Mants (“Mants”), a black male, worked at Wal-Mart from November 1990 to June 1993. For the majority of his employment, Mants was an hourly sales associate in the Pet Department. Mants asserts that Wal-Mart discriminated against him because of his race in violation of Title VII. The alleged racially discriminatory acts include wrongful discharge, denial of promotion and hostile work environment. The court will address each in turn. 1. Wrongful discharge (a) Findings of Fact On June 1, 1993, Wal-Mart fired Mants because, according to Wal-Mart, Mants violated a company policy that prohibited employees from conducting personal business while working on the premises. This policy provides that “[W]al-Mart will provide the supplies and materials necessary for you to perform your job. All company supplies, property and facilities are to be used for company business only and should not be used by you for any type of personal gain.” Barnes’ Deel. at ¶ 4 (Ex. C). Wal-Mart asserts that in October 1992, Mants received a “decision-making day” write-up for offering to set up a Wal-Mart aquarium for a customer in exchange for a donation. According to Wal-Mart, in May 1993 and again in June 1993, Mants assisted a customer named Fred Weafer (“Weafer”), who worked at Sam’s Wholesale Club, a subsidiary of Wal-Mart. Weafer reported to Wal-Mart management that on these two occasions, Mants told him that he had a business “on the side” and could sell him an aquarium that was in the trunk of his car. Weafer’s Decl. at ¶ 1. Mants refers only to the June 1993 discussion with Weafer. Specifically, Mants states that Weafer approached him about purchasing a Wal-Mart aquarium and asked Mants if he would help him set it up at home. Mants admits that he “suggested [he] would be willing to set up an aquarium in Weafer’s home during ... off hours” and that he gave Weafer a calling card with his name, address and telephone number. Mants’ Decl. at ¶ 3. While Mants “admit[s] that [he] intended to charge the ‘customer’ a fee to be agreed upon later,” Mants denies that he violated company policy. Id. at ¶ 2. Namely, Mants asserts that “[b]ecause the transaction would have occurred during [his] off hours, it would not have violated company policy.” Mants also asserts that he did not think his offer violated company policy because he “believe[d] [he] was about to close a sale for Wal-Mart involving more than one hundred and fifty dollars.” Id. at ¶ 3. Mants states that “immediately” after Weafer left the Pet Department, Mants was “paged and told to report to the store office.” Wal-Mart’s Store Manager Gary Barnes (“Barnes”) then discharged him stating that a “concerned ‘customer’ had reported a violation of company policy.” Id. Mants further asserts that Wal-Mart management allowed a white employee, Tommy Bishop (“Bishop”), who worked in the furniture department, to assemble in-store furniture for customers for a fee. Id. at ¶ 4. In response, Wal-Mart contends Mants’ conduct was dissimilar to that of Bishop. Specifically, Wal-Mart admits that it knew Bishop performed these services, but denies that Bishop charged any type of fee. (b) Conclusions of Law For Mants to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, where Wal-Mart fired him for the stated reason that he violated a company policy, he must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) thát he was qualified for the position he held; (3) that he was terminated; and (4) that Wal-Mart awarded the position to someoné outside the protected class. Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 605 (11th Cir.1994) (Title VII violation-of-work rule case where the plaintiff was fired for his alleged misconduct); Green v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County, 25 F.3d 974, 978 (11th Cir.1994). See also Cabiness v. YKK (USA), Inc., 859 F.Supp. 582 (M.D.Ga.1994). Mants also may establish the fourth element of the prima facie case by showing that the position remained open. Coutu v. Martin County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 47 F.3d 1068, 1073 (11th Cir.1995). Mants is a black male, and it is undisputed that on June 1, 1993, Wal-Mart terminated him. Additionally, Wal-Mart has not disputed that Mants was qualified for the position he held. Hence, the court finds that Mants has satisfied the first three elements of the prima facie case. The court finds, however, that Mants has failed to raise a disputed issue of material fact as to the fourth element. The Eleventh Circuit recently has emphasized that a plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case if he or she does not establish that the position was in fact “awarded to a person of a non-protected class.” Green, 25 F.3d at 978. In Green, the plaintiff was employed as a substitute food service worker and sought a permanent full-time position. The plaintiff’s employer denied her the position and instead hired another substitute worker. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a charge of national origin discrimination with the EEOC, claiming that her employer discriminated against her because she was of East Indian descent. The EEOC denied the charge, and the plaintiff commenced a Title VII lawsuit. Because the evidence at trial did not reveal the successful applicant’s national origin, the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of discrimination. Here, as in Green, the record is devoid of any evidence regarding Mants’ replacement. Mants never mentions in either his deposition or declaration whether an employee outside the protected class replaced him or whether the position remained vacant after his termination. Mants, who bears the initial burden of raising an inference of race discrimination, has not even addressed the fourth element of his prima facie case. As such, the court finds that Mants cannot prevail on his termination claim. Even assuming, arguendo, that Mants had satisfied his prima facie case, the court finds that Wal-Mart successfully has rebutted any inference of discrimination by asserting that it fired Mants for violating a company policy. In discharge cases, violations of work rules have been held to constitute legitimate reasons for termination. Jones, 874 F.2d at 1540; Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Communications, 738 F.2d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir.1984). Mants, on the other hand, denies that his conduct breached company policy. The court, however, need not involve itself in an interpretation of Wal-Mart’s company policy to determine whether Mants’ actions constitute a breach thereof. That is because, even assuming that Mants did not violate company policy, an employer’s good faith belief that an employee violated a work rule sufficiently rebuts an inference of discrimination. Jones, 874 F.2d at 1540. Here, Barnes asserts that his decision to fire Mants was based on a report from Weafer that Mants tried to sell him a non-Wal-Mart aquarium. The court finds that this, in conjunction with Mants’ previous write-up concerning similar conduct, is sufficient factual evidence to support Wal-Mart’s assertion that it had a good faith belief for firing Mants. Because Mants cannot overcome his initial hurdle of establishing a prima facie case, the court need not examine Mants’ argument that he was discharged for engaging in conduct comparable to that of a white employee, who was allowed to remain on the job. Accordingly, the court finds that summary judgment is due to be granted as to Mants’ wrongful discharge claim. 2. Denial of Promotion (a) Findings of Fact On or about February 26, 1993, a Department Manager position in the Pet Department became open. It is undisputed that the position was filled by Bishop, a white employee who worked in the Furniture Department. Assistant Manager Willie Morgan (“Morgan”), a black male, decided to offer the position to Bishop, and his decision was approved by the Store Manager. Morgan asserts that he chose Bishop over Mants because Bishop was more reliable and dependable and had experience performing managerial duties in the Furniture Department. On the other hand, the evidence shows that Mants obtained average performance ratings that included negative comments as to his absenteeism and dependability. For example, Mants received several disciplinary write-ups for misconduct, such as working on his car while “on the clock” and offering to set up a Wal-Mart aquarium in exchange for a donation.. Mants, on the other hand, asserts that he had more experience than Bishop. He states that he often worked as the “Acting Manager” of the pet department and, thus, “had performed the duties of manager,” which included “ordering merchandise, keeping shelves stocked, pricing merchandise and supervising and training other employees.” Mants’ Deel. at ¶ 8. (b) Conclusions of Law To make out a prima facie case in a failure-to-promote case, Mants must show: (1) that he belongs to a protected class; (2) that he applied for and was qualified for the position for which Wal-Mart was seeking applicants; (3) that he was denied the promotion; and (4) that an another equally or less qualified individual outside the protected class received the promotion. Batey, 24 F.3d at 1334 n. 11 (citing Wu v. Thomas, 847 F.2d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1006, 109 S.Ct. 1641, 104 L.Ed.2d 156 (1989)). Wal-Mart assumes “for the purposes of [the summary judgment] motion only” that Mants has satisfied his prima facie case. Hence, the court will proceed to second part of the burden-shifting analysis. The court finds that Mants has failed to offer proof that Wal-Mart’s legitimate, nondiseriminatory reason for promoting Bishop — Bishop’s alleged superior qualifications — is a pretext for discrimination. Wal-Mart has explained in depth that Mants was not chosen for the Department Manager position because of his performance problems, which in Wal-Mart’s opinion rendered him less qualified than Bishop. Mants has not disputed Wal-Mart’s assessment of his performance and has presented no evidence to assail Bishop’s qualifications. Mants merely asserts that Bishop was unfamiliar with the Pet Department and that he had to train Bishop. The court finds, however, that there is no indication that such assistance is unusual for an employee transferred to a different area of the store. In Durham, supra at 784, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, where the plaintiff alleged discrimination when she was denied a promotion to a controller job. The Tenth Circuit explained that [a]lmost all of [the plaintiff’s] evidence would only support a finding that she was qualified for the controller job, not that she was more qualified than those promoted. She does assert that she had more experience than those who got the job, but her own description of her experience supports Xerox’s claim that her experience was only gathering financial data, not financial planning. Furthermore, she has produced no evidence of the successful candidates’ experience to compare to her own. Mere seniority does not support .a finding that she was more qualified for a different job. Her only other comparative evidence is her testimony that she trained the controllers. But this only shows that Durham had experience with some specific tasks that the controller would have to perform, not that she generally had better evaluations, financial planning experience, interpersonal skills, management experience, conceptual skills, or organizational skills. 18 F.3d at 840 (internal citations omitted). For the same reasons asserted in Durham, the court finds that Mants’ bare allegation that he was familiar with the managerial duties of the pet department does not create a jury issue as to pretext. Mants has not raised a factual issue that he had been performing such duties successfully and also does not dispute his documented performance problems. Wal-Mart does not violate Title VII by choosing a more qualified, or even an equally qualified, white candidate over a qualified black candidate unless it did so with discriminatory intent. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 259, 101 S.Ct. at 1096-97. Mants has not proffered one piece of evidence to support a finding that the real reason Wal-Mart did not choose him was because of his race. At most, Mants has argued that Wal-Mart’s asserted reason for denying him the promotion was false. However, the mere implausibility of the asserted reason is insufficient, standing alone, to create a jury issue. St. Mary’s, 509 U.S. at 511 n. 4, 113 S.Ct. at 2749 n. 4. Mants has stated in a conelusory manner that he is more qualified for the position. The law is clear that a litigant’s self-serving assertion doés not create a genuine issue of fact. Pitts v. Shell Oil Co., 463 F.2d 331, 335 (5th Cir.1972). mOREOVER the Eleventh Circuit has held that it is the perception of the decision-maker that is relevant. Wal-Mart has shown in detail that Bishop possessed skills above and beyond those held by Mants. Even assuming that Mants was the best qualified person for the position, however, “Title VII does not require an employer ... to promote the most qualified applicant; it only requires that the employer make such decisions without regard to race, sex, religion, color or national origin.” McCarthney v. Griffin-Spalding County Bd. of Educ., 791 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir.1986) (citations omitted); see also Smith v. Horner, 839 F.2d 1530, 1538 (11th Cir.1988) (quoting Clark v. Huntsville City Bd. of Educ., 717 F.2d 525, 527 (11th Cir.1983) (holding that where “ ‘an employer selects the person it believes is best qualified, an argument of pretext ordinarily will fail’ ”). Here, Mants has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that Wal-Mart’s decision not to promote him was based on race considerations. Additionally, the promotion decision was primarily made by a black assistant manager, Morgan, which while not disposi-tive, indicates an absence of discrimination. Moulds v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 935 F.2d 252, 256 (11th Cir.1991) (denial of promotion not discriminatory where a black manager was involved in the decision-making process); Young v. Lehman, 748 F.2d 194, 197 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1061, 105 S.Ct. 2126, 85 L.Ed.2d 489 (1985) (no race discrimination in promotions where minorities were on selection panel). Finally, there was a racially balanced mix of Department Managers in the store where Mants worked. In fact, in May 1993, there were fourteen black and eight white Department Managers. Barnes’ Deel. at ¶ 6. The fact that many other black employees occupied Department Manager positions certainly weakens Mants’ claim that race was the real reason he was not promoted. Mallory v. Booth Refrigeration Supply Co., 882 F.2d 908, 911 (4th Cir.1989) (no discrimination in promotions since other blacks had been promoted); Burrows v. Chemed Corp., 743 F.2d 612, 617 (8th Cir.1984) (no sex discrimination in promotions where other women were promoted). While summary judgment is often not appropriate where intent is at issue, “[unsupported allegations as to motive do not confer talismanic immunity from Rule 56” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir.1985). Without any proof of pretext, Mants cannot meet his ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination. Accordingly, the court finds that summary judgment is due to be granted in favor of Wal-Mart as to Mants’ denial of promotion claim. S. Hostile Work Environment (a) Findings of Fact Mants asserts that Wal-Mart engaged in various acts of racial harassment during his three-year employment. First, Mants asserts that he was asked “on a regular basis” to gather shopping carts from the parking lot, while white employees holding similar positions were not asked to do so. Mants’ Decl. at ¶ 6. Mants states that not only was gathering shopping carts not in his job description but also that “the [P]et [Department was not located near the exits, so management had to go out of its way to page [him] to leave [his] department and bring in the carts.” Id. Further, Mants states that “I was asked to gather shopping carts time and again when white employees were less busy and nearer the exits.” Id. Second, Mants asserts that a co-manager, Artie Moore (“Moore”), once “questioned [him] with suspicion when [he] helped a black male customer load his purchases into an automobile.” Id. at ¶7. Moreover, Mants asserts that Moore “subtly but consistently, treated [him] as if suspected of dishonesty, in a manner different from the way he treated white employees.” Id. (b) Conclusions of Law To set forth a prima' facie case of hostile work environment based upon race, Mants must establish that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome racial harassment; (3) the harassment was based on race; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment; and (5) respondeat superior. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 903-05 (11th Cir.1982). To satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie case, a plaintiff must show that the harassment was “sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). In determining this question, courts must look to the totality of circumstances. Id. at 22, 114 S.Ct. at 371. While a “ ‘mere utterance of an ... epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee,’ does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII,” the environment does not have to be so severe as to cause a “nervous breakdown” or “seriously affect employees’ psychological well-being.” Id. at 21-22, 114 S.Ct. at 370-71 (citations omitted). The court finds that Mants has failed to show that the alleged acts attributable to Wal-Mart’s supervisors were so severe and pervasive to constitute a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title YII. Mants alleges only two incidents that allegedly occurred over a period of three years, and the racial motive behind the incidents claimed is dubious at best. At his deposition, Mants testified as follows: “Q. Was there anything racial about being sent to get shopping cart? A. No, I don’t think so.” Mants’ Dep. at 37-38. Mants also cannot identify any white employees who were not asked to gather shopping carts. Id. at 48. Without any comparative evidence of similarly-situated white employees, the court has nothing from which it can infer that being made to collect shopping carts was race motivated. While gathering shopping carts may have been inconvenient, Title VII does not create a cause of action for unpleasant working conditions caused by something other than a protected status. Robertson v. Alabama Dept. of Economic and Community Affairs, 902 F.Supp. 1473, 1480 (M.D.Ala.1995) (DeMent, J.). In short, the court finds that Mants has failed to show that the conduct of which he complains was related to his status as a black person. As to the remaining statement that a co-manager questioned him with suspicion, courts have held that isolated and sporadic incidents of harassment are insufficient to create a hostile working environment. Rogers v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 454 F.2d 234, 237-238 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 957, 92 S.Ct. 2058, 32 L.Ed.2d 343 (1972); see Johnson v. Bunny Bread Co., 646 F.2d 1250, 1257 (8th Cir.1981) (explaining that there must be a “steady barrage of opprobrious racial comment”); see Clayton v. White Hall School Dist., 875 F.2d 676, 680 (8th Cir.1989) (affirming summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff’s “single incident of alleged [race] discrimination” was insufficient to establish a claim for hostile work environment). Additionally, as above, Mants has failed to present any comparative evidence. Accordingly, the court finds that summary judgment is due to be granted as to Mants’ claim asserting a hostile work environment based on race. B. Calandra Cherry 1. Findings of Fact Calandra Cherry (“Cherry”), a black female, worked as a part-time employee from May 1991 until September 1993. Her sole claim is that, like Mants, she was discriminated against based on her race when Assistant Manager Willie Morgan (“Morgan”) denied her a promotion to be Manager of the Pet Department. As already stated, it is undisputed that Bishop, a white male, was promoted to this position at Morgan’s selection. Cherry brings her failure-to-promote claim under Title VII. Cherry filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC on September 14, 1993. After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, Cherry filed a federal complaint on May 25, 1993. Cherry testified at her deposition that she was aware no later than “Christmas” 1992 that Bishop had received the promotion over her. In her declaration filed subsequently, Cherry somewhat modifies her testimony and states that “[t]o the best of my recollection and belief, in early 1993 or late 1992, Tommy Bishop, a white male, was selected for promotion to Pet Department Manager.” Cherry’s Deel. at ¶ 3. Cherry then explained that she cannot remember the exact date because “it was difficult to know if an opening was filled. This is because there was no uniform practice of announcing openings for promotions. Such openings were published through ‘the grapevine.’ ” Id. at ¶ 4. 2. Conclusions of Law Wal-Mart contends that Cherry’s denial of promotion claim is time-barred for failure to file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the denial of the promotion to Manager of the Pet Department. Under Title VII, a plaintiff has 180 days from the date of the alleged unlawful practice to file a charge with the EEOC. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Commercial Office Prods. Co., 486 U.S. 107, 110, 108 S.Ct. 1666, 1668-69, 100 L.Ed.2d 96 (1988) (citing § 706(e), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)). The 180-day period “begins to run from the time that the complainant knows or reasonably should know that the challenged act has occurred.” Stafford v. Muscogee County Bd. of Educ., 688 F.2d 1383, 1387 (11th Cir.1982) (citing Allen v. United States Steel Corp., 665 F.2d 689, 692 (5th Cir.1982)). In some instances, however, equitable tolling may save a plaintiffs lawsuit even though he or she failed to timely file a charge within the requisite 180 days. Smith v. McClammy, 740 F.2d 925, 926 (11th Cir.1984). Here, it is undisputed that Cherry filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on September 14, 1993. Cherry’s claim is, therefore, barred if she knew or reasonably should have known of Bishop’s promotion prior to March 12, 1993. Wal-Mart asserts that in making this determination, the court should disregard Cherry’s declaration because it contradicts her previous, clear deposition testimony. In Van T. Junkins & Associates v. United States Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656 (11th Cir.1984), the court held that in opposing a motion for summary judgment, a party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by submitting “an affidavit that merely contradicts, without explanation, previously given clear testimony.” Id. at 657. Hence, a court properly may disregard such an affidavit as unreliable and a “sham.” Id. at 658. The court finds that it need not determine whether Cherry’s subsequent declaration contradicts her deposition testimony. Even accepting as true all the representations made in her declaration, Cherry’s inability to pinpoint an exact date is insufficient to sustain her burden of proving that all jurisdictional prerequisites to filing suit have been met. Welty v. S.F. & G., Inc., 605 F.Supp. 1548, 1553 (N.D.Ala.1985) (citing Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 678 F.2d 992, 1010 (11th Cir.1982)). Cherry’s declaration is less than clear regarding the date she became aware of Bishop’s promotion. Obviously, “late 1992” is outside the 180-day time limit, and the court has no way of knowing whether “early 1993” falls before or after March 12, 1993. Cherry’s Decl. at ¶ 4. Additionally, Cherry has not argued or set forth any extraordinary circumstances that warrant an equitable deviation from the 180-day time limit. Accordingly, Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment as to Cherry’s Title VII cause of action is due to be granted, and the court need not reach the merits of Cherry’s claim. C. Corey Crawford and Caroline Glover 1. Findings of Fact Corey Crawford (“Crawford”), a black male, and Caroline Glover (“Glover”), a black female, challenge as unlawful their terminations of employment. Wal-Mart denies the existence of any discrimination and contends that Crawford and Glover’s jobs were eliminated as part of a reduction-in-force, which had legitimate purposes and was not a pretext for discrimination. Namely, Wal-Mart asserts that in the Spring of 1993, District Manager Don Bost instructed the management team to implement an economic reduction-in-force due to “overstaffing” at Wal-Mart store # 930. Moore’s Decl. at ¶ 2. According to Wal-Mart, the management team collectively decided to fire those employees with the lowest performance and productivity evaluations. The team made its decisions after reviewing all personnel files, including Crawford and Glover’s. In addition to Crawford and Glover, two other employees also were fired, one black male and one black female. Wal-Mart’s policy provides that such reductions in force might occur from time to time. Crawford and Glover have submitted documents indicating that Wal-Mart store # 930 discharged twenty-eight employees from December 1, 1992, through May 5, 1993, and that twenty-one of these employees were black. Id. at ¶5. These documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request to the EEOC on behalf of Glover. The documents submitted include “Exit Interview” forms and “Hourly Associate Information Sheet[s].” Wal-Mart conducts an “Exit Interview” prior to an employee leaving the employment of Wal-Mart. Employees fill out an “Hourly Associate Information Sheet” upon obtaining employment at Wal-Mart. As stated on this sheet, Wal-Mart’s purpose in obtaining the information contained therein is as follows: In order to ensure compliance with those laws and regulations requiring us to file annual statistical reports concerning the make-up of our work force, we request your assistance in completing the following form. This information is requested solely for reporting purposes and will not be used in any decision affecting your continued status as an associate of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. These documents reveal the following information: (a) Crawford Crawford worked at Wal-Mart as a stock person from October 1992 until his termination in April 1993. Crawford was one of several people initially hired as a temporary employee to work during the Holiday season in December. While many of these temporary employees were terminated after the Holiday season, Crawford was retained. Wal-Mart asserts that Crawford was selected for termination because he had the poorest performance record of all other stock persons. Indeed, the evidence reveals that Crawford received numerous disciplinary write-ups during his seven-month tenure at Wal-Mart. For example, he received a disciplinary write-up in November 1992 for tardiness and in February 1993 for non-compliance with safety rules. Additionally, Wal-Mart’s documentation reveals that he received a “decision-making day” on March 12, 1993, for failing to report to work for two days without calling in to inform management. On the “decision-making day” form, Assistant Manager Randy Maske (“Maske”) wrote that “[i]f it happens again[,] it may result in termination.” Crawford’s Dep., Ex. 12. On this form, Crawford acknowledged his misconduct and stated that “[a]s far as I’m concerned, I hope that this problem I’ve created for myself is solved. This will not happen again.” Id. Crawford received another write-up in April 1993 by Store Manager Mark Ferris for purportedly initiating a confrontation with a fellow employee. On Crawford’s performance evaluation in March 1993 (which occurred one month prior to his termination), he received “Below requirements” ratings in four of seven categories. “Below requirements” are given to those employees who are “[n]ot consistent in performance, [and] require[ ] a great deal of supervision.” Id., Ex. 11 (attached thereto). In the three remaining categories, Crawford was rated as “meets requirements.” Id. Crawford does not dispute that his performance record was worse than that of any other stock person, and he has not identified any employee who should have been terminated instead of him. Id. at 27. Nonetheless, Crawford asserts that the real reason for his termination was race-related. Crawford states that he overheard Moore tell Maske, that “Corey works like a Mandingo.” Id. at 56. Crawford testified that, at the time, he did not know what “Mandingo” meant but subsequently he “watched a rented video, Mandingo, and realized Moore had compared [him] to a black slave.” Crawford’s Decl. at ¶3. Wal-Mart attempts to discredit Crawford’s testimony in this regard by emphasizing that Crawford failed to report this comment to management and did not mention it in either his complaint or in the affidavit attached to his EEOC charge, (b) Caroline Glover Glover asserts sex and race discrimination claims under Title VII. Glover first was hired by Wal-Mart on March 23, 1992, as a temporary employee. She was later assigned to the night maintenance crew as a full-time regular employee, where she worked until she was discharged on April 14, 1993. Glover was the only female who worked on the night maintenance crew. In the Winter of 1993, Glover was hospitalized for two weeks for complications with bronchial asthma. Her treating physician, Dr. David Franco, instructed her not to use certain cleaning chemicals to which she was exposed when cleaning the restrooms at work. He also wrote her a note, dated February 18, 1993, which read: “To Whom It May Concern, Mrs. C. Glover has moderate to severe bronchial asthma. She does not need to be working around aromatic chemicals — it exacerbates her disease. Thanks.” Glover’s Dep., Ex. 12. Glover gave the note to her supervisor, Dennis Roberts (“Roberts”), a white male, who in turn showed the note to Store Manager Mark Ferris (“Ferris”).. Glover states that they made her continue cleaning the bathrooms. Glover again was hospitalized and, upon returning to work “sometime ... in March of ’93”, asserts that she brought Roberts a second note from her treating physician. Id. Glover states that at this time, Roberts changed her job duties and instructed her to use the “floor buffers and heavy equipment to clean.” Id. It appears that her new job responsibilities at this time also included emptying trash cans, cleaning the carpets, and sweeping and mopping the floors. Glover’s Dep. at 18. About the buffers, Glover states as follows: I didn’t mind [using the buffers], and the men in maintenance helped to train me to operate the particular cleaning machines. I was doing a good job using the heavy equipment, as good as the male maintenance workers. However, the home office learned that I was using the heavy equipment and instructed Roberts not to make me use the heavy equipment because I was a woman and could hurt myself. He became more angry at me for this and cursed me. He asked me what could I do if I couldn’t use the equipment or the chemicals. Glover’s Decl. at ¶ 5. Glover further asserts that Roberts “cursed” at her “plenty of times” at work in front of her co-workers. For example, Roberts told her that she “couldn’t do a damn thing.” Glover’s Dep. at 59. The other “words” she cannot recall. Id. Roberts denies that he ever cursed at her. Glover then asserts that shortly after this incident, Roberts cut her hours from eight hours per night to five hours per night. Glover’s Decl. at ¶ 6; Glover’s Dep. at 61-62. Wal-Mart asserts that because Glover was unhappy with her reduced work hours, Glover met on March 10, 1993, with both Ferris and the District Manager, Don Bost (“Bost”). Glover complained about the reduction in hours, and was told that the jobs she could do did not require a full-time schedule. Then, on April 14, 1993, Glover was “laid off.” Glover’s Decl. at ¶ 6. Glover asserts in her deposition that Willie Morgan, who conducted her exit interview, told her the reason she was being terminated was “because [she] was the only female and couldn’t perform the jobs that were being done as the males,” thus, she “was the first choice to be laid off.” Glover’s Dep. at 63. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, asserts that it chose her for termination because she had the lowest evaluation of the workers on the maintenance crew, had the lowest productivity, and was considered to be the least willing to work the job duties in the department. Moreover, Glover’s “Exit Interview” report reflects that she was involuntarily terminated for “reduction of staff’ and her supervisors checked the box indicating that she could apply for rehiring if a job became available in the future. Glover claims that the real reason she was terminated was because she is female and because she is black. Shortly after she was terminated, she states that a white male (referred to as “Snake” in her deposition) replaced her on the night maintenance crew. Wal-Mart asserts, however, that while it ultimately hired an employee to fill the position held by the Glover, this hiring did not occur for more than one year after Glover’s discharge, when the store’s performance had improved. 2. Conclusions of Law In reduction-in-foree cases, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie ease by showing: “(1) that he [or she] was in a protected group and was adversely affected by an employment decision; (2) that he [or she] was qualified to assume another position at the time of discharge ...; and (3) evidence by which a factfinder might reasonably conclude that the employer intended to discriminate in reaching the decision at issue.” Barnes v. Southwest Forest Indus., Inc., 814 F.2d 607, 609 (11th Cir.1987) (citing Williams v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 120, 129 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)). The plaintiff may satisfy the third element by introducing “direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence” indicating that the defendant singled him or her out for discharge based upon unlawful discrimination. Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1465 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 878, 111 S.Ct. 211, 112 L.Ed.2d 171 (1990). (a) Corey Crawford In its brief in support of summary judgment, Wal-Mart “concedes that Crawford satisfied the first element of the prima facie case and ... assume[s] arguendo, for the purposes of this motion only, that he can satisfy the second element since the stock person position was not entirely eliminated.” Wal-Mart’s Br. in Supp.Mot.Summ.J. as to Crawford’s claims, filed Feb. 1, 1995, at 9. Wal-Mart, however, contends that Crawford has not submitted evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Wal-Mart terminated him on the basis of race. The court disagrees. Wal-Mart points to Crawford’s personnel file, which the court agrees contains multiple indicia of poor performance. However, Crawford has submitted evidence that he overheard his supervisor, Moore, called him a racially derogatory name, a “Mandingo.” Contrary to Wal-Mart’s assertion, the court finds that the alleged “Mandingo” comment is material to Mants’ termination claim. At the very least, this racial epithet raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the management team’s decision to terminate him was, in part, based on racial reasons, particularly since Moore was involved in the termination decision process. The court further finds that while Crawford’s documented performance problems constitute a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination, the racial slur is, alone, sufficient to create an issue of fact as to pretext. See St. Mary’s, 509 U.S. at 510-11, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. Accordingly, the court finds that Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment as to Crawford’s termination claim is due to be denied. (b) Caroline Glover (i) sex discrimination The court finds that Glover has established a prima facie case of sex discrimination in her termination. Glover, as a female, is within a class protected by Title VII. See Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1526 (11th Cir.1992) (“Title VII ... forbids discrimination on the basis of gender, race, or national origin in a wide range of employment practices, including hiring, firing, training, and promoting.”) (emphasis supplied). Glover unquestionably was “adversely affected” when Wal-Mart terminated her employment. The court further finds that Glover has presented two pieces of evidence that, if believed by the jury, are sufficient to infer sex discrimination: (1) Glover’s testimony that her superiors would not let her use the buffers because she “was a woman and could hurt” herself and (2) Morgan’s statement that she was being terminated because she was a female. The court next finds that WalMart has rebutted an inference of discrimination by presenting evidence that Wal-Mart selected Glover for termination based upon her poor work performance. Evidence that a defendant fired a plaintiff based upon a “company wide [reduction-in-force] and poor work performance” are legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons sufficient to rebut a prima facie ease of discrimination. Earley, 907 F.2d at 1084 n. 5. To survive summary judgment, Glover must offer proof that Wal-Mart’s stated reason was a cover-up for sex discrimination. Here, the court finds that Glover’s evidence in support of her prima facie case is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext: The factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons, will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination. St. Mary’s, 509 U.S. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. Even though Glover’s personnel file contains several marks of poor performance, the court finds that in the face of the direct evidence offered by Glover, Wal-Mart should not be entitled to prevail on a motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Morgan’s comment that Glover was being terminated because she is female, not only refutes Wal-Mart’s purported reasons for firing Glover but also, if found credible at trial, constitutes direct evidence of gender animus for Wal-Mart’s decision to fire Glover. See Miles v. M.N.C. Corp., 750 F.2d 867, 870 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that a plaintiff may submit evidence of direct discrimination, such as “discriminatory statements,” to show pretext). The court finds this evidence sufficient by itself to raise a genuine of issue of material fact as to pretext. Moreover, Glover’s evidence that her superiors contemplated gender considerations in disallowing her to operate the buffers, if believed, further bolsters her claim. Accordingly, the court finds that summary judgment as to Glover’s termination claim based upon sex is due to be denied. (ii) race discrimination Wal-Mart asserts that Glover’s race discrimination claim is outside the scope of her EEOC charge and, thus, should be dismissed as a matter of law. The scope of a judicial complaint under Title VII is limited to the acts of discrimination contained in the EEOC charge or claims “ ‘like or related’ ” to the claims raised in the charge. Coon v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 829 F.2d 1563, 1569 (11th Cir.1987); See also Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 466 (5th Cir.1970) (holding that “the allegations in a judicial complaint ... ‘may encompass any kind of discrimination like or related to the allegations contained in the charge and growing out of such allegation during the pendency of the case before the [EEOC]’”). It is undisputed that Glover complained only about sexual discrimination in her EEOC charge. Glover’s Dep. at 56-57, Ex. 3. Making a claim based on one type of discrimination in an EEOC charge does not permit a plaintiff to assert a claim about a totally different type of discrimination in a later lawsuit. See Ang v. Procter & Gamble, 932 F.2d 540, 545 (6th Cir.1991) (EEOC claim based on national origin; judicial claim based on race barred); Buffington v. General Time Corp., 677 F.Supp. 1186, 1194 (M.D.Ga.1988) (EEOC claim based on race; judicial claim based on age barred). Because Glover’s claim of race discrimination is beyond the scope of the claims made in her EEOC charge, Wal-Mart’s motion for sum-maty judgment as to Glover’s race discrimination claim is due to be granted. Alternatively, the court finds that Glover’s race discrimination claim fails on the merits. The record is completely lacking of any evidence that race motivated Wal-Mart’s decision to terminate Glover. Even assuming that Glover can establish a prima facie case, she has failed to rebut Wal-Mart’s legitimate reason for firing her — her poor performance and productivity. Glover has not identified a single employee, black or white, who should have been terminated instead of her. She also has not pointed to any other maintenance worker with a performance record similar to hers, who was retained. Glover’s allegations are conclusory only and, thus, “without more, are not sufficient to raise an inference of pretext or intentional discrimination.” Grigsby v. Reynolds Metals Co., 821 F.2d 590, 597 (11th Cir.1987). In an attempt to show pretext, Glover has attached significance to the number of black employees terminated between December 1992 and May 1993. Statistical evidence is one type of evidence admissible to prove pretext. Miles, 750 F.2d at 870 (11th Cir.1985); see also McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 805, 93 S.Ct. at 1825-26 (holding that a plaintiff may present statistics to show that a defendant’s articulated, nondiscriminatory reason is pretextual). In Miles, the Eleventh Circuit held that statistical evidence is useful for demonstrating a “general pattern” of discrimination in the defendant’s employment decisions. 750 F.2d at 873. However, “their usefulness in proving pretext ‘depend[s] primarily upon their relevance to the specific decision affecting the individual plaintiff, [and not] those that affect plaintiffs protected class in general.’ ” Perk v. Oregon State Bd. Of Higher Educ., 816 F.2d 458, 462 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 853, 108 S.Ct. 158, 98 L.Ed.2d 113 (1987) (citation omitted). Miles, 750 F.2d at 873 (same). Here, Glover’s offer of statistical proof is a general one based solely upon the number of blacks and whites discharged at Wal-Mart during December 1992 and May 1993. It is clear from Miles' that what is required is a statistical analysis tailored to the individual facts at issue. Glover presents no evidence of the number of employees at store # 930 or how many were black. For instance, if the workforce at Wal-Mart is seventy-five percent black, then discharging twenty-one black employees and seven white employees within a five month period is hardly significant. See Krieg v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 998, 1002 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 929, 104 S.Ct. 1712, 80 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984) (insignificant that majority of managers terminated were in protected group because majority of managers employed were in protected group). Statistical evidence cannot be considered in a vacuum. Thus, the court finds that the statistics wholly lack any probative value and cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, summary judgment is due to be granted as to Glover’s race claim asserting intentional discrimination in Wal-Mart’s decision to fire her. D. Charlotte Hardy and Lola Nowden 1. Finding of Facts Charlotte Hardy (“Hardy”) and Lola Now-den (“Nowden”), both black females, assert that Wal-Mart discriminated against them by subjecting them to a racially hostile work environment. Both Hardy and Nowden have been employed at Wal-Mart since 1992. They base their claim on a single incident of alleged harassment. In sum, they assert that at the end of their shift on April 15, 1993, they were walking through the store together and Hardy was carrying a blouse that had been “marked-down” and that she was planning to purchase. According to these two plaintiffs, two assistant managers, Moore and Morgan, proceeded to “watch” them suspiciously — “in the same manner that they watch persons suspected of shoplifting.” Nowden’s Dep., Ex. 3. Hardy and Nowden deny allegations of shoplifting and assert that the same two assistant managers did not watch or follow a white co-employee, who one day took a shopping cart full of “marked-down” clothes into her office. 2. Conclusions of Law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. . § 2000e-2(a)(l). This section prohibits an employer from maintaining a racially hostile work environment. The elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment are set forth supra at 791. Even accepting as true all the facts as represented by Hardy and Nowden, the court finds that this single incident, without more, is insufficient to sustain a claim for a hostile work environment based upon race. Specifically, the court finds that these two plaintiffs have failed to show that the harassment. was “sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. at 370). It is clearly established that isolated and sporadic incidents are insufficient to create a hostile working environment. See Rogers, 454 F.2d at 237-38; Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406, 1412-13 (10th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the court finds that summary judgment is due to be granted as to Hardy and Nowden’s claim alleging a hostile work environment based on race. . E. Twalla McCree 1. Findings of Fact Plaintiff Twalla McCree (“McCree”), a black female, began employment at Wal-Mart in June of 1986 and has worked as a layaway clerk since late 1992. She predicates liability under Title VII and § 1981, asserting that on two occasions Wal-Mart denied her a promotion because she is black. Specifically, McCree states that: (1) Colleen Sedóte-(“Sedóte”), a white female, was promoted to a service desk position in April 1993; and, (2) subsequently, Debbie Martin (“Martin”), a white female, replaced Sedóte in August 1993. Service desk employees generally handle merchandise returns and refunds. According to Wal-Mart, customer service skills are very important in service desk positions because of “the frequent and ... direct contact with customers.” Ross Decl. at ¶2. Wal-Mart asserts that McCree was not qualified to work at the service desk. McCree had worked at the service desk from 1987-89 but, according to Wal-Mart, was removed from that position because of “an endless number of customer complaints.” Id.; Barnes Decl. at ¶ 4. When McCree worked as a service desk employee, Earlene Ross (“Ross”) was her supervisor. Ross states that because of McCree’s “attitude toward customers [and]' fellow associates,” she has not recommended her for any customer service position. Ross Decl. at ¶ 7. Ross, on the other hand, was “not aware” of any customer complaints against Sedóte. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. As to Martin, Ross states that “[s]he was extremely dependable and flexible, whereas McCree said she could only work specified hours on certain days.” Id. at ¶4. Both Sedóte and Martin had both worked at the service desk temporarily to “give breaks” to the regular service desk employees. Id. at ¶ 6. Additionally, Wal-Mart points to two “verbal discussion write-ups” issued against McCree. On July 14,1992, McCree received a written reprimand for missing too much scheduled work time. McCree’s Dep., Ex. 5. Then on May 21, 1992, McCree received another “verbal discussion” for taking an extended lunch break and for raising her voice at the Head Customer Service Manager. Wal-Mart also states that in a 1992 annual evaluation, McCree received sub-standard ratings as front-end cashier. Out of twenty-five categories, McCree received a “one” (on a scale of five) in a single category and a “two” in four categories. McCree’s Dep. at 96-99, Ex. 4 (attached thereto). As printed on the evaluation sheet, a “two” is labeled “below requirements” and means that the associate is “[n]ot consistent in performance [and] requires a great deal of supervision.” Id. Two of the below requirements ratings were in the customer service category and the other was in attendance. McCree’s overall performance rating was a “3.00,” which is “meets requirements” and means that the associate is “consistent i