Malesevic v. Tecom Fleet Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:97 cv 38 AR.,2:97 cv 38 AR. |
| Parties | Danny MALESEVIC, Plaintiff, v. TECOM FLEET SERVICES, INC.; John Seabrook, individually and in his official capacity as liaison to the Mayor's Office of the City of Gary, Indiana; City of Gary, Indiana, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Danny Malesevic, Valparaiso, IN, pro se.
Theodore J. Johnson, Foelber and Johnson, Valparaiso, IN, for Danny Malesevic.
Thomas J. Piskorski, Laura A. Lindner, Seyfarth Shaw Fairweather and Geraldson, Chicago, IL, Robert E. Bettac, Mark J. Levine, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld, LLP, San Antonio, TX, for Tecom Fleet Services, Inc.
Thomas J. Piskorski, Laura A. Linder, Seyfarth Shaw Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, IL, Rebecca L. Wyatt, City of Gary, Legal Dept., Gary, IN, Robert E. Bettac, Mark J. Levine, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld, LLP, San Antonio, TX, for John Seabrook.
Rebecca L. Wyatt, City of Gary, Legal Dept., Gary, IN, for City of Gary, Indiana.
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendants, City of Gary and John Seabrook, on May 28, 1998, and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendants, Tecom Fleet Services, Inc. and John Seabrook, on June 1, 1998. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED.
Danny Malesevic is a white male. In April, 1993, he began working as a lead technician mechanic for Ryder MLS, Inc., an independent contractor who was providing vehicle maintenance services for the City of Gary. Ryder's contract with the City of Gary expired on June 8, 1996, and Malesevic, along with other Ryder employees, were hired temporarily by the City of Gary to continue servicing its vehicles. As a lead tech, Malesevic's job responsibilities included light and medium duty vehicle repair, some heavy duty vehicle repair, and shop supervisor when the regularly assigned shop supervisor was on vacation. His rate of pay in July, 1996, was $13.19 an hour.
In July, 1996, the City of Gary awarded its vehicle maintenance contract to the defendant, Tecom Fleet Services, Inc. Under the terms of the contract, Tecom had sole responsibility for all personnel decisions. James Scarborough, the person who was placed in charge of setting up the operations and hiring employees to staff the contract, posted a list of available job openings at the vehicle maintenance department, arranged for the distribution of employment applications, and interviewed the applicants.
On July 16, 1996, Malesevic applied for an "open" position, meaning he was interested in a number of available positions. On his application, Malesevic listed his present position as lead tech 1 and his work duties as light and moderate equipment repair. During his interview with Scarborough and human relations manager Vicki Bush, Malesevic offered to provide Scarborough with documents showing his training, certifications, and degrees, but Scarborough indicated to him that all employment decisions would be based solely on the information provided on the employment applications. Three days after the interview, Malesevic was offered a position as an auto technician at the rate of $12.60 an hour. Because the position would have required him to take a reduction in pay, Malesevic notified the city liaison officer, John Seabrook, that he would not accept the position. Malesevic subsequently obtained a mechanic's position at an automobile dealership earning $17.61 an hour.
During his employment with the City of Gary, Malesevic contends that he was harassed repeatedly and made to feel unwelcome by both his co-workers and Sea-brook. He alleges that Seabrook exhibited racial bias by stating that he would be "running the show" and that the City garage would be an all "black shop." Malesevic further alleges that he was called racial slurs and subjected to derogatory comments on a daily basis by his co-workers and that Seabrook failed to take corrective action.
On January 22, 1997, the plaintiff commenced this action against Tecom, Seabrook, and the City of Gary pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, he contends that Tecom intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by refusing to hire him as a heavy equipment technician. Second, he asserts a Section 1983 claim against all defendants for depriving him of equal employment opportunities in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, he claims that the City of Gary and Seabrook subjected him to a hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In separate motions, the defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Tecom argues that Malesevic has failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence of race discrimination or to satisfy the burden shifting method of proof for race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Tecom further claims that the Section 1983 claim must fail because the plaintiff has not shown that it engaged in state action. The City of Gary also argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the Section 1983 and Section 1981 claims because the plaintiff has not identified a municipal policy or custom that caused the alleged violations. Seabrook contends that the Section 1981 and Section 1983 claims against him must be dismissed because the plaintiff has not established the presence of a hostile work environment or an intent to harass him because of his race. Finally, Seabrook submits that he cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged racial harassment committed by other employees.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper only if it is demonstrated "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Sybron Transition Corporation v. Security Insurance Company of Hartford, 107 F.3d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir.1997); Dempsey v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 16 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir.1994); Southmark Corporation v. Cagan, 999 F.2d 216, 223 (7th Cir.1993). The burden is upon the moving party to establish that no material facts are in genuine dispute, and any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue must be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 160, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1610, 26 L.Ed.2d 142, 155 (1970); Oates v. Discovery Zone, 116 F.3d 1161, 1165 (7th Cir. 1997); Patel v. Allstate Insurance Company, 105 F.3d 365, 367 (7th Cir.1997). A fact is material if it is outcome determinative under applicable law. Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 427 (7th Cir.1997); Estate of Stevens v. City of Green Bay, 105 F.3d 1169, 1173 (7th Cir.1997); Maravilla v. United States, 60 F.3d 1230, 1233 (7th Cir.1995). Even if the facts are not in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate when the information before the court reveals a good faith dispute as to inferences to be drawn from those facts. Plair v. E.J. Brach & Sons, Incorporated, 105 F.3d 343, 346 (7th Cir.1997); Lawshe v. Simpson, 16 F.3d 1475, 1478 (7th Cir.1994) Dempsey, 16 F.3d at 836. Finally, summary judgment "will not be defeated simply because motive or intent are involved." Roger v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 21 F.3d 146, 148 (7th Cir.1994). See also Plair, 105 F.3d at 347; United Association of Black Landscapers v. City of Milwaukee, 916 F.2d 1261, 1268 (7th Cir.1990). Cf. Hong v. Children's Memorial Hospital, 993 F.2d 1257, 1261 (7th Cir.1993); Lac du Flambeau Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, Inc., 991 F.2d 1249, 1258 (7th Cir.1993).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must determine whether the evidence presented by the party opposed to the summary judgment is such that a reasonable jury might find in favor of that party after a trial.
The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial — whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.
[T]his standard mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which is that the trial judge must direct a verdict if, under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986)
See also: Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 273 (1986); Sybron Transition Corporation, 107 F.3d at 1255; Weinberger v. State of Wisconsin, 105 F.3d 1182, 1188 (7th Cir.1997); Forman v. Richmond Police Department, 104 F.3d 950, 957 (7th Cir.1997).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a federal cause of action for "the deprivation under color of [state] law, of a citizen's rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Gossmeyer v. McDonald, 128 F.3d 481, 489 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 2082-83, 129 L.Ed.2d 93 (1994)). To prevail on a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) the defendant acted under color of law. Adickes, 398 U.S. at 150, 90 S.Ct. at 1604; Fries v. Helsper, 146 F.3d 452, 457 (7th Cir.1998); Stevens v. Umsted, 131 F.3d 697, 700 (7th Cir.1997); Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049, 1051 (7th Cir.1996).
For purposes of Section 1983, the "under...
To continue reading
Request your trial