Strickland v. City of Detroit
| Decision Date | 22 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-2373,19-2373 |
| Citation | 995 F.3d 495 |
| Parties | Johnny STRICKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Michigan; James Craig; Mark Bliss ; Rodney Ballinger ; Steven Murdock ; Casey Schimeck; Deanna Wilson, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Plaintiff Johnny Strickland appeals, in part, the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of his employer, the City of Detroit ("the City"), as well as Detroit Police Chief James Craig, Commander Mark Bliss, Sergeant Rodney Ballinger, Officer Steven Murdock, Officer Casey Schimeck, and Sergeant Deanna Wilson. On appeal, Plaintiff claims that the City maintained a hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and retaliated against him for reporting racial discrimination, also in violation of Title VII, § 2000e-3(a). He also asserts that Officer Schimeck is not entitled to qualified immunity on his excessive force claim brought pursuant to § 1983. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's grant of summary judgment.
Plaintiff is an African American police officer. He has been employed by the Detroit Police Department ("the Department") since January 2008. He was promoted to sergeant during the pendency of this case. Plaintiff argues that he has been subjected to harassment based on race throughout his tenure as a police officer. His claims also focus on a January 22, 2017 incident when he was arrested by fellow Detroit police officers and the Department's response to his complaint about that incident.
Plaintiff points to a number of incidents, social media posts, and Department reports as contributing to or confirming the existence of a racially hostile workplace during his career as a Detroit police officer. These include the following:
These alleged instances only represent a portion of the racial harassment that Plaintiff has observed in over a decade at the Department. In addition, he claims he has directly experienced racial discrimination. He contends that he was denied desired shift assignments and trainings in favor of white officers. At one point, he worked in the same precinct as Steele and Garrison, who were responsible for a number of racial incidents, and despite his efforts to talk to them, they would not speak to him and isolated him. Plaintiff personally observed white supervisors disrespecting African American officers throughout his tenure as a police officer and was disrespected himself.
Two Department reports recognized racial issues in the Detroit police force. In response to concerns about inequality related to race, gender, and sexual orientation, Police Chief James Craig formed the Committee on Race and Equality ("CORE"). The CORE report was submitted to Chief Craig on January 12, 2017. The committee concluded "that the department has a growing racial problem." (CORE Report, R. 39-4, Page ID #1048.) It reached this conclusion after its investigation uncovered discriminatory practices like segregated units, which were predominantly staffed by white officers in a majority African American police force. Moreover, the CORE committee also found that African American officers who complained about bias in appointments and training were retaliated against.
Similarly, in response to the Snapchat post of officers stranding and mocking an African American motorist that surfaced in February 2019, Chief Craig ordered an environmental audit of the Department's Sixth Precinct. Although Plaintiff never worked in the Sixth Precinct, a co-chair of the CORE committee, retired police officer John Bennett, affirmed that "[t]he problems that Chief Craig is at long last addressing in the Sixth Precinct were observed in varying degrees throughout the police department by the CORE committee in 2016." (Bennett Aff., R. 39-5, Page ID #1057.) As a result of the audit, (Sixth Precinct Environmental Audit, R. 39-2, Page ID #1030.)
On January 22, 2017, Plaintiff was berated, handcuffed, and arrested by his fellow officers. Shortly after his shift had ended that morning, Plaintiff pulled into a gas station off Jefferson Avenue near his home in Detroit. Unbeknownst to him, the gas station was the site of an active police investigation of a reported incendiary device. Due to a thick fog, Plaintiff could not see the firetrucks that were at either end of the street or the police cars with their lights on before he pulled into the gas station.
When he exited his vehicle, Plaintiff heard a commotion, but, again, due to the fog, he could not see the source. Someone, who did not identify himself, yelled, (Strickland Dep., R. 36-3, Page ID #764.) Once Plaintiff saw a uniformed Sergeant Rodney Ballinger emerge from the fog, he immediately identified himself as a police officer. Sergeant Ballinger continued to scream and yell at Plaintiff, said he did not care if Plaintiff was a police officer, and ordered Plaintiff to put his hands up. Sergeant Ballinger then placed handcuffs on Plaintiff that were extremely tight and did not double lock them, which is a technique used to prevent the handcuffs from tightening further. Sergeant Ballinger then walked Plaintiff out of the gas station, belittling him as stupid and dumb.
Eventually they reached Sergeant Ballinger's scout car, where they were met by Officer Casey Schimeck and Officer Lawrence Blackburn. Sergeant Ballinger continued to mock Plaintiff in front of the other officers. Sergeant Ballinger then left Plaintiff with Officer Schimeck. She grabbed a hold of his handcuffs, lifting them up, and tightening them further. Plaintiff told Officer Schimeck that the handcuffs were too tight, and she did not respond. Eventually, Officer Blackburn loosened the handcuffs. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a bilateral wrist contusion
after the incident.
Plaintiff was disciplined as a result of the January 22, 2017 incident and suspended for three days without pay or benefits. Plaintiff testified that on the scene, now-Commander Mark Bliss told him that if he complained about the incident there would be consequences.
Plaintiff did complain to the Department that Sergeant Ballinger, Officer Blackburn, and Officer Schimeck had mistreated him during the January 22, 2017 incident. An internal affairs investigation was initiated, and Plaintiff eventually became its prime target. Sergeant Deanna Wilson, the lead internal affairs officer on the investigation, concluded "that the actions of all [officers] on scene inclusive of Officer Strickland were improper from the verbiage utilized by the responding officers to the refusal of a direct order from a law enforcement officer which perpetuated the events that followed." (Internal Affairs Report, R. 36-7, Page ID #889.) Formally, Plaintiff was charged with three violations of the Department's code of conduct. First, he was charged with abusing his authority and position as a police officer to obtain access to the gas station's video of the January 22, 2017 incident. Second, he was charged with withholding information related to an ongoing investigation by failing to provide that video to the Department. Third, Plaintiff was charged with neglect of duty for failing to document his viewing of the video in his activity log.
Plaintiff sued the City for creating a hostile workplace and the City and Sergeant Wilson for illegal retaliation, both in violation of Title VII. He also sued the City, Chief Craig, Commander Bliss, Sergeant Ballinger, Officer Steven Murdock, and Officer Schimeck under § 1983, claiming an unlawful search and seizure and the use of excessive force in connection with the January 22, 2017 incident. His last claim was under § 1981 for interference with contractual rights. Following discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims, and the district court granted the motion in its entirety. Plaintiff now appeals the district court's grant of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Wilkie
...employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take appropriate remedial action.” Strickland v. City of Detroit, 995 F.3d 495, 503 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing Khalaf v. Ford Motor Co., 973 F.3d 469, 482 (6th Cir. 2020)). To establish a prima face case of retaliatory hosti......
-
Jones v. Fed. Express Corp.
...consists of ‘raising the question of why [the plaintiff] was singled out for an adverse employment action." Strickland v. City of Detroit, 995 F.3d 495, 512 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting George, 966 F.3d at 462 ). As stated above, "on the reading of [the evidence] most generous to Plaintiff," Jo......
-
Bledsoe v. Tenn. Valley Auth. Bd. of Dirs.
...the comparison between similarly situated individuals is sufficiently relevant is itself a jury question. See Strickland v. City of Detroit , 995 F.3d 495, 514 (6th Cir. 2021).Here too, questions of fact remain. TVA rejects Bledsoe's comparison to similarly situated instructors because thos......
-
Williams v. Miniard
... ... outcome of the lawsuit. Beans v. City of Massillon , ... No. 5:15-cv-1475, 2016 WL 7492503, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 30, ... City of ... Troy , 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001). See ... Strickland v. City of Detroit , 995 F.3d 495, 508 (6th ... Cir. 2021) (citing Ouza v. City of Dearborn ... ...