Perkins v. Lake County Dept. of Utilities, 1:92CV0725.
Citation | 860 F. Supp. 1262 |
Decision Date | 11 August 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 1:92CV0725.,1:92CV0725. |
Parties | Arthur PERKINS, Plaintiff, v. LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Frederick D. Middleton, Jr., Cleveland, OH, for plaintiff.
Michael P. Brown, Office Of The Pros. Atty., Painesville, OH, for defendants.
In this action this Court is confronted with the issue of the extent to which provable genetic/hereditary classification controls on the proposition of membership in a protected class within the meaning of Title VII, a question which may well be one of first impression.
This action, brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII), was filed on April 10, 1992, alleging disparate treatment in the workplace due to Plaintiff's status as an American Indian. Plaintiff, Arthur Perkins, is employed as a Laborer for the Lake County Department of Utilities (hereinafter the Department). Defendants are the Department and three of its commissioners, John Platz, Robert Gardner and Mildred Teuscher.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that:
Defendants have filed two motions for summary judgment. The first seeks partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's allegations that he was unlawfully denied promotions and promotion opportunities by reason of his national origin, on the basis that under Ohio law he is disqualified from holding the positions he sought.
Defendants' second motion for summary judgment presents the philosophic and pragmatic question alluded to in the introduction to this opinion. That motion attacks Plaintiff's Title VII claims on the ground that Plaintiff is not, in fact, an American Indian and, therefore, not being a member of a class protected by Title VII cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination thereunder.1 It is this motion which will be first addressed in this ruling.
The disposition of a motion for summary judgment is governed by Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the granting of such motion where, "The pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 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." It is the court's function under such a motion to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, as opposed to endeavoring to resolve any such factual issues. Tee-Pak, Inc. v. St. Regis Paper Co., 491 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.1974); 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.151.-0.
In Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir.1989), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the related decisions of the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), which addressed summary judgment practice, referring to those rulings as establishing a "new era" of "dramatic change" in that area of practice, one in which summary judgment is to be viewed with "more favorable regard". The court summarized those rulings as standing for a number of new principles in summary judgment practice, including the fact that cases involving considerations of state of mind issues are not automatically inappropriate for summary judgment; that a federal directed verdict standard ("whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law") should be applied to summary judgment motions; that a non-moving party must provide "more than a mere scintilla of evidence" to avoid summary judgment; that the substantive law applicable to the cause of action will govern the materiality of the issues of fact; that the court has no duty to search the record to determine the existence of genuine issues of material fact; and, perhaps most significant, that the "new era" allows a trial court more discretion in weighing the evidence offered by the non-moving party, considered in light of the whole record, to determine whether that party's evidence does "more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts" or whether it demonstrates that the non-moving party's claims are "implausible". Id. at 1479-1480 ( )
Title VII provides in part:
Plaintiff seeks relief under Title VII on the basis of alleged discrimination by reason of national origin. Under the standards articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), in order to proceed on such a claim Plaintiff must make out a prima facie case of discrimination, which includes evidence that he is a member of a protected class within the reach of Title VII.
Defendant's motion presents this Court with two questions: (1) whether Plaintiff is an American Indian, for Title VII purposes; and, (2) if not, whether he can nevertheless obtain Title VII relief for discrimination based upon his and his employer's mistaken belief that he is an American Indian.
As will appear hereinafter, this Court must find the present answer to the first question to be an equivocal "maybe." As to the second, the answer turns upon a number of considerations also relevant to the first, and, in the exercise of literary license, this Court will withhold that answer for the time being.2
Defendants offer as proof of their contention that Plaintiff is not a member of the class for which he seeks Title VII protection the affidavit of Paula Shepherd in which Ms. Shepherd avers in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jacques v. Dimarzio, Inc.
...does not make [discrimination based upon mistaken racial identity] or its resulting injury less direct."); Perkins v. Lake County Dept. of Util., 860 F.Supp. 1262, 1277 (N.D.Oh. 1994) (noting in context of Title VII racial discrimination claim: "[I]t is the employer's reasonable belief that......
-
Lewis v. State of Del. Dept. of Public Instruction, Civil Action No. 95-559 MMS.
...is part of a protected class for the purposes of a Title VII national origin discrimination claim. Accord Perkins v. Lake County Dep't of Util., 860 F.Supp. 1262, 1278 (N.D.Ohio 1994) (enumerating physical appearance, language, cultural activities, and associations as objective factors, any......
-
Greene v. Swain County Partnership for Health
...Brief, at 19-21. The Court has found very little case law on what is required to show membership in a protected class. In Perkins v. Lake County Dep't of Utilities, the district court, when faced with the same issue, found that an employee's membership in a protected class should be determi......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Faps, Inc.
...claimants belonged to the protected group is based on FAPS' perception of the applicants' race. See Perkins v. Lake County Dep't of Utilities, 860 F. Supp. 1262, 1277 (N.D. Ohio 1994); Eriksen v. Allied Waste Sys., Inc., 06-13549, 2007 WL 1003851, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 2, 2007) (quoting Be......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...perception may form the basis of a national origin discrimination claim. See , e.g. , Perkins v. Lake Cnty. Dep’t of Utilities , 860 F. Supp. 1262, 1276-78 (N.D. Ohio 1994) (denying employer’s motion for summary judgment despite evidence that Perkins was less than one-sixteenth American Ind......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...perception may form the basis of a national origin discrimination claim. See , e.g. , Perkins v. Lake Cnty. Dep’t of Utilities , 860 F. Supp. 1262, 1276-78 (N.D. Ohio 1994) (denying employer’s motion for summary judgment despite evidence that Perkins was less than one-sixteenth American Ind......
-
Table of cases
...Periman v. City of Taft , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55920 (S.D. Tex. May 25, 2011), §21:7.F.5 Perkins v. Lake County Dep’t of Utilities , 860 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ohio 1994), §24:4.B.2 Perkins v. Total Bldg. Maint., Inc ., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46782 (N.D. Tex. April 7, 2015), §9:1.B.1 Permian B......
-
Table of cases
...Periman v. City of Taft , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55920 (S.D. Tex. May 25, 2011), §21:7.F.5 Perkins v. Lake County Dep’t of Utilities , 860 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ohio 1994), §24:4.B.2 Permian Basin Community Ctrs. for Mental Health and Mental Retardation v. Johns , 951 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. App.—El ......