Hansborough v. City of Elkhart Parks & Rec. Dept.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1992
• Docket Number: No. S91-13.,S91-13.
• Citation: 802 F. Supp. 199
• Parties: Harold W. HANSBOROUGH, Jr., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ELKHART PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

802 F. Supp. 199

Harold W. HANSBOROUGH, Jr., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ELKHART PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

No. S91-13.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

September 30, 1992.

Bryon J. Berry, Warsaw, Ind., for plaintiff.

Richard C. Noser, Rebecca F. Butler, Elkhart, Ind., for defendant.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ALLEN SHARP, Chief Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Harold W. Hansborough, Jr. initially filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") after being terminated from his position with the defendant, City of Elkhart Parks and Recreation Department ("City of Elkhart") on July 5, 1990. A "right to sue" letter was issued by the EEOC to Mr. Hansborough on December 3, 1990.¹ The plaintiff filed suit in this court on January 9, 1991 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e — 2000e-17. The court granted the plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis on January 9, 1991. On January 24, 1991 the plaintiff moved the court to appoint legal counsel to represent him. The court held a pre-trial conference on this matter on May 10, 1991 at which time the plaintiff appeared pro se, and the court agreed to attempt to appoint counsel for the plaintiff. On June 27, 1991, Bryon Berry entered his appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. On September 17, 1991 the court held a telephonic pre-trial conference in this matter, and a schedule for proceeding with this case was established.

On October 30, 1991 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on August 13, 1992. As of this date, no response has been filed by the plaintiff. Nonetheless, this court now proceeds with its ruling on the motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 12(c) and 56 and Local Rule 9.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

The plaintiff alleges that he has been discriminated against in violation of Title VII by his supervisors at the City of Elkhart's Mayor's Summer Youth Corp Program. The Recreation Supervisor for the Parks and Recreation Department and the supervisor of the Mayor's Summer Youth Corp Program, Ben Barnes, is a black male. The plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Virta Vance, is a black female. Mr. Hansborough is alleging both race and sex discrimination. Thus, the first issue this court must address is whether intraracial discrimination is actionable under Title VII. The exact issue before this court is whether discrimination by a black individual against another black individual because of the fact that he is a black person is actionable under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("1964 Act")².

For the reasons expressed below, this court holds that intraracial discrimination is actionable under Title VII. Given this finding, the court then addresses a second issue: whether Hansborough has sustained his burden of proof to establish his prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there exists 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; accord Juarez v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, 957 F.2d 317, 320 (7th Cir.1992). A material question of fact is a question which will be outcome determinative of an issue in that case. Wainwright Bank v. Railroadmens Federal Sav., 806 F.2d 146 (7th Cir.1986).

While generally, "Summary Judgment is only appropriate when the record reveals that no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party, ... this general standard is applied with added rigor in employment discrimination cases, where intent is inevitably the central issue." McCoy v. WGN Continental Broadcasting Co., 957 F.2d 368, 370-371 (7th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). Still, "summary judgment will not be defeated simply because issues of motive or intent are involved, and is proper when the plaintiff fails to indicate any motive or intent to support plaintiff's position." Rush v. McDonald's Corp., 966 F.2d 1104, 1109 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting Morgan v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank, 867 F.2d 1023, 1026 (7th Cir.1989)). The most recent, thorough discussions of Rule 56 by the Supreme Court of the United States can be found in a trilogy of cases decided in 1986. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)³; and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Celotex addressed the initial burdens of the parties under Rule 56, and Anderson addressed the standards under which the record is to be analyzed within the structure of Rule 56.

After Celotex, it is clear that a nonmoving party may not rest on its pleadings to avoid summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325-26, 106 S.Ct. at 2554. See also, Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (7th Cir.1990); and Zayre Corp. v. S.M. & R. Co., 882 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir.1989). "The days are gone, if they ever existed, when the nonmoving party could sit back and simply poke holes in the moving party's summary judgment motion." Fitzpatrick v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 916 F.2d 1254, 1256 (7th Cir.1990). The initial burden is on the moving party to demonstrate "with or without supporting affidavits" the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that judgment, as a matter of law, should be granted in the moving party's favor. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553 (quoting Rule 56). Once the moving party has met the initial burden, the opposing party must "go beyond the pleadings" and "designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine material issue for trial.'" Id. Furthermore, in Anderson, the Court held that what facts are material in a specific case shall be determined by the substantive law controlling that case or issue. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. In addition, the Court went on to interpret Rule 56 as requiring that courts analyze summary judgment motions utilizing the standard of proof relevant to the specific case or issue. Id. at 252-55, 106 S.Ct. at 2512-14.

For academic insight into Celotex and Anderson, see Childress, A New Era for Summary Judgments: Recent Shifts at the Supreme Court, 116 F.R.D. 183, 194 (1987), where the author states:

The recent Supreme Court cases likely require that summary judgment be more readily granted.... This emerging trend signals a new era for summary judgment, one in which the old presumptions are giving way to a policy of balancing and efficiency, and the mechanism is more appropriate to double as a sufficiency motion — allowing some sort of trial itself on the paper record.

More recently Childress has written that Celotex and Anderson clarify that Rule 56 motions

should not be hesitantly granted when appropriate.... Any litigant dealing with summary judgment must be aware of this new trend, the Court's cases, their application in each circuit, and the direction they portend. Pretrial practice is a new ballgame.

Childress, A Standards of Review Primer: Federal Civil Appeals, 125 F.R.D. 319, 343 (1989).

Recent object lessons applying these ideas are found in Kizer v. Children's Learning Ctr., 962 F.2d 608 (7th Cir.1992); Karazanos v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp., 948 F.2d 332, 335 (7th Cir.1991); Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 947 F.2d 269, 273-274 (7th Cir.1991); and Un. Ass'n of Black Landscapers v. City of Milwaukee, 916 F.2d 1261, 1265 (7th Cir.1990).

IV. INTRARACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Before addressing the merits of this case, an important underlying question must be addressed. Specifically, the issue to be considered is whether intraracial discrimination is actionable under Title VII. Or, in this precise case, whether discrimination by one black person against another black person because of the fact that he is a black person is actionable under the 1964 Act.

Certainly, the first place that one must look to answer this question is to the face of the statute itself. If the answer is not readily apparent from such an examination, it may also be relevant to look to the legislative history of the enactment. Still another source to consider is the judicial interpretation of that statute by the Supreme Court of the United States and the lower federal courts.

The section of the statute pertinent to this case provides as follows:

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer —

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his 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)(1). An examination of the statute reveals that it is essentially neutral on the question of intraracial discrimination.

Certainly it is not impossible for one black person to discriminate against another black person on the basis of race or color. However, when one examines the legislative history of this statute, it is most difficult to discern any specific contemplation of intraracial discrimination. One can state as a historical fact that that specie of discrimination was not even a minor consideration in the eyes of the sponsors of the legislation in 1964. When one reads the congressional debates and, particularly, the statements of the leading sponsors of the legislation in the United States Senate, namely Hubert Humphrey & Everett McKinley Dirksen, one is hard pressed to find the kind of discrimination that is alleged in this case. Beyond any doubt these two Senators were the leading sponsors of that legislation. Indeed, President Lyndon...