Leonard v. City of Frankfort Elec. and Water Plant Bd.

• Decision Date: 09 January 1985
• Docket Number: No. 83-5767,83-5767
• Citation: 752 F.2d 189
• Parties: 36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1181, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,911 Sammy L. LEONARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF FRANKFORT ELECTRIC AND WATER PLANT BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 189

752 F.2d 189

36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1181,

35 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,911

Sammy L. LEONARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF FRANKFORT ELECTRIC AND WATER PLANT BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 83-5767.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 15, 1984.

Decided Jan. 9, 1985.

Fredric J. Cowden (argued), Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.

Sammy L. Leonard, pro se.

Marion Rider (argued), Charles L. Hobson, Frankfort, Ky., for defendant-appellee.

Before EDWARDS and CONTIE, Circuit Judges; and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant, Sammy L. Leonard (Leonard), seeks review of the district court's judgment for the Defendant-Appellee, Electric and Water Plant Board of Frankfort, Kentucky (Board) in his civil rights action alleging employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 ¹ and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-1-17 (Title VII). ² Leonard seeks reversal of the district court's decision granting summary judgment for the Board with respect to all of Leonard's Sec. 1981 claims and his claim of discriminatory discharge under Title VII and Sec. 1981. We reverse the district court's summary disposition of these claims and remand them to afford Leonard the opportunity to prove that the Board's actions were unlawful. Leonard also seeks reversal of the district court's damage award on the Title VII claims which were tried. We find this award unobjectionable but believe that Leonard may have the opportunity to prove additional damages on the remanded claims if he is able to do so.

I.

Leonard was employed by the Board as a utility man in its water department on December 8, 1968. He was transferred to the electric department in 1969 and remained there until May of 1970, when he was granted a leave of absence to receive training as an electric lineman in Texas. He returned from this program in November of that year and was promoted to third-class lineman, where he worked until September, 1971, when he received severe injuries after falling 43 feet from a utility pole because his climbing gear had been tampered with. ³ He returned to work in December, 1971, and since his doctor had ordered that he perform only light work, he was put to work in the meter department. Just two months later he was transferred back to the line crew as a third-class lineman in the crew which performed the heaviest work in the company. This transfer occurred despite Leonard's request to be put with another, less strenuous crew because he had not totally recuperated from his injuries. Ten days after the transfer, Leonard was reinjured while pulling heavy equipment. The district court found that the Board had failed to sufficiently explain the reason for this transfer and that the circumstances suggested an undertaking to force Leonard to leave his job with the Board. ⁴ In May of 1972, Leonard was demoted from third-class lineman to utility man, where he remained until he was discharged on April 15, 1974.

The circumstances surrounding Leonard's discharge were not developed at trial because of the pretrial dismissal of the discharge claims and thus, are not entirely clear. In dismissing this claim, the district court relied on Leonard's deposition testimony, stating that he was discharged because he threw his headgear at his supervisor. After the deposition and prior to summary judgment, Leonard filed an affidavit stating, among other things, that the incident which resulted in his termination was the result of years of past discriminatory treatment which he had endured. ⁵

II.

In August of 1974, Leonard filed a charge of discrimination against the Board with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). ⁶ Leonard charged that the Board had failed to promote him, demoted him, discharged him, and subjected him to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment on account of his race. Leonard further charged that he had protested these actions but the Board failed to take corrective action. After investigating these charges, the EEOC found probable cause existed to believe the Board had discriminated against Leonard. ⁷ Leonard obtained a Right to Sue Letter on October 27, 1978, and on January 24, 1979, this action was filed, seeking damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e, and attorneys fees. Leonard reiterated his allegations that the Board had failed to promote him, demoted him, discharged him, and subjected him to unlawful terms and conditions of employment on account of his race.

On December 19, 1979, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge H. David Hermansdorfer, granted the Board's motion for summary judgment with respect to the alleged Sec. 1981 violations, stating that Leonard had failed to allege invidious racial motivation on the part of the Board, a local governmental agency. The district court also granted summary judgment dismissing Leonard's claims of discriminatory discharge, claiming that Leonard's deposition testimony conclusively rebutted his allegation that his discharge was unlawful.

On May 10, 1982, the remaining Title VII claims were tried to the court, Judge Scott Reed presiding. All of Leonard's claims were dismissed except those alleging discriminatory working conditions and promotional practices. Regarding the promotional practices, Leonard's demotion was held to be unlawful since the Board's promotional standards were highly subjective and based solely on the recommendations of certain supervisors who had discriminated against Leonard. Leonard was awarded back pay on this claim to the extent of the wage differential between his positions before and after his demotion for the number of days he had worked until his discharge. Leonard did not recover damages for the discriminatory working conditions, the court noting that such relief would be in the nature of compensatory damages, not recoverable under Title VII.

III.

A.

Leonard first asserts that his complaint set forth sufficient allegations of discriminatory intent or motive on the part of the Board to state a Sec. 1981 claim against a local governmental agency and that the district court's dismissal of these claims on summary judgment was erroneous. We agree and remand Leonard's Sec. 1981 claims so that he may be afforded the opportunity to prove the requisite intent on the part of the Board.

In civil rights actions, pleadings are to be liberally construed and a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Fitzke v. Shappell, 468 F.2d 1072 (6th Cir.1972). In order to successfully assert a claim of discrimination under Sec. 1981 a claimant must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in purposeful or intentional discrimination. General Building Contractors Association v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982). This intent requirement may be satisfied by direct allegations and proof of invidious discriminatory animus or circumstantially demonstrated by alleging and proving discriminatory conduct, practices, or the existence of significant racially disproportionate impact. Little v. United States, 489 F.Supp. 1012 (C.D.Ill.1980), aff'd, 645 F.2d 77 (7th Cir.1981). In Little, the district court for the Central District of Illinois appropriately observed:

[I]t is the exceptional case where there is clear, direct evidence of racial animus, and ... in the typical case the discriminatory racial purpose must be divined from inferences and implications arising out of circumstantial evidence. 489 F.Supp. 1024.

Thus, where a complaint alleges facts evidencing such a discriminatory purpose or intent, although it fails to specifically allege a discriminatory purpose, it is sufficient to state a claim under Sec. 1981. Newson v. American Greetings Corp., 535 F.Supp. 1389 (N.D.Ohio 1982); see also Long v. Ford Motor Company, 496 F.2d 500 (6th Cir.1974) (plaintiff alleging Sec. 1981 violation must establish that his employment terms vary from those employer accords similarly situated whites); Hudson v. Teamsters Local Union No. 957, 536 F.Supp. 1138 (S.D.Ohio 1982) (complaint alleging employee was treated differently than other workers on account of his race sufficiently implied requisite intent under Sec. 1981). In addition, where a substantial issue of fact remains as to whether an employer's intent or motive was discriminatory as required under Sec. 1981, summary judgment is precluded. Byrd v. Roadway Express Inc., 687 F.2d 85 (5th Cir.1982); Williams v. DeKalb County, 82 F.R.D. 10 (N.D.Ga.1979).

Leonard's complaint named several defendants, including the City of Frankfort, several of his supervisors and the Board. All defendants except the Board were dismissed prior to the Board's motion for summary judgment. The complaint alleged that the defendants subjected Leonard to racial insults, failed to promote him, demoted him, and discharged him on account of his race and that these actions were protested but the Board had failed to take corrective action. Leonard further alleged that the Board's policies and practices resulted in the deprivation of his right to equal employment opportunity. The Board answered that any actions which may have occurred were not the result of its policy or direction. In his deposition, Leonard maintained that the discriminatory acts directed at him "reflected back on the Board" because it was "in charge" and responsible for ruling on all promotions, demotions and complaints.

On this basis the district court dismissed Leonard's Sec. 1981 claims for failing to allege the requisite intent on the part of the Board. We disagree with the district court's dismissal. The issue of the Board's intent or motive was clearly raised by the pleadings and Leonard's deposition and represented an unresolved...