Tutton v. Garland Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1990
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. CA3-88-1600-D.
• Citation: 733 F. Supp. 1113
• Parties: Elmer TUTTON, Jr., Fred Dabney, Walter R. Medford, Marvin B. Walker, and Edward Fuller, Plaintiffs, v. GARLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

733 F. Supp. 1113

Elmer TUTTON, Jr., Fred Dabney, Walter R. Medford, Marvin B. Walker, and Edward Fuller, Plaintiffs, v. GARLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. CA3-88-1600-D.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

March 30, 1990.

Edward B. Cloutman, III of Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs.

John L. Ross and Jennifer D. Aufricht of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.

FITZWATER, District Judge:

The instant motion for summary judgment in this race discrimination action presents the questions whether plaintiffs have adduced sufficient summary judgment evidence to warrant a trial and whether plaintiffs and their former counsel should be sanctioned for filing and continuing to prosecute this suit.

I

Plaintiffs are five African-Americans who were employed by defendant Garland Independent School District ("GISD") as members of the maintenance staff and later terminated from employment. Plaintiffs allege they were laid off solely because of their race, and seek relief pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Defendant GISD moves for summary judgment, contending plaintiffs cannot point to any evidence to support their claims of employment discrimination based upon race. Defendant also requests the court to award attorney's fees against plaintiffs and their former attorney¹ pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), Fed.R. Civ.P. 11, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.² Plaintiffs have not responded to the motion.³

II

A

To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmovants must establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The mere existence of some disputed fact will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted. Id.

A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 248-49, 106 S.Ct. at 2510-11 (citing First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1592-93, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)). Nonmovants cannot rest on their allegations without any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint. Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510 (quoting Cities Serv., 391 U.S. at 290, 88 S.Ct. at 1593 (conspiracy allegations insufficient without evidentiary support)). They must do more than simply show that "there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. at 1355, and are obligated to come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356.

The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against parties who fail to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to their case, and on which they will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In such a situation there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving parties' case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Id. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-54. The summary judgment movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the nonmovants have failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of their case with respect to which they have the burden of proof. Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552.

B

Plaintiffs seek relief in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. "When 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII are alleged as parallel bases for relief, the same elements are required for both actions." Flanagan v. Aaron E. Henry Community Health Serv. Center, 876 F.2d 1231, 1233-34 (5th Cir.1989). In a discriminatory termination case, to establish a prima facie case the plaintiff must show that he belonged to a protected class, was terminated from a position for which he was qualified, and was replaced with someone not in the protected class. Id. at 1233. In the case of a reduction in force, the plaintiff need not prove he was replaced. See Williams v. Williams Elec., Inc., 856 F.2d 920, 923 (7th Cir.1988); cf. Williams v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 120, 128 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943, 102 S.Ct. 1439, 71 L.Ed.2d 655 (1982) (replacement requirement not applicable to age discrimination reduction in force cases).

Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the defendant can rebut the presumption of discrimination by articulating a nondiscriminatory reason for termination. Flanagan, 876 F.2d at 1233. The plaintiff must then show the defendant's purported reason is either a pretext for discrimination or the employer had mixed motives in its decision. Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 481 (5th Cir.1989).⁴

To survive the present motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs must raise a genuine issue of material fact on each issue of their prima facie case. Id. at 477. The mere presentation of evidence sufficient to create fact questions on the elements of the prima facie case is insufficient to avoid summary judgment, however, where the employer articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiffs' discharge. Cf. Bienkowski v. American Airlines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1503, 1505 n. 1 (5th Cir.1988) (age discrimination case); Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 585 (11th Cir.1989) (same). In such a case the plaintiffs must present sufficient evidence that race was a determining factor in their discharge to present a question of fact that requires resolution by trial.

C

It is clear that plaintiffs cannot survive summary judgment in this case even if they have established a prima facie case.⁵ The GISD has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to discharge plaintiffs. According to the affidavits of GISD personnel, GISD was forced to make personnel cuts because of financial problems faced by the school district. It selected employees for dismissal based on their performance evaluations, disciplinary records, and attendance. Four of ten employees chosen for the reduction in force were Anglo and six were African-American. After the layoffs, nine African-American, eight Hispanic, and six Anglo employees remained. GISD has also provided charts which list the employees in the departments subject to lay offs. The charts demonstrate the employees chosen for termination were those with the worst performance evaluations, highest number of reprimands, and worst attendance records. Finally, GISD has introduced evidence that the EEOC found no discrimination based on plaintiffs' charges.⁶

The plaintiffs have not responded to the motion for summary judgment. Although their failure to respond does not permit entry of a "default" summary judgment, the court is permitted to accept the movant's evidence as undisputed. Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988). There is simply no basis in the record upon which a reasonable trier of fact could find that plaintiffs were the victims of intentional discrimination. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

III

Having prevailed on the merits, defendant GISD moves the court to impose sanctions against the plaintiffs and their former counsel.⁷

Defendant predicates its sanction request on five grounds, contending any reasonable investigation would have disclosed that plaintiffs' claims were not supported by law or fact because: (1) the EEOC determined there was no basis for plaintiffs' claims; (2) the EEOC affirmed the decision after review by EEOC headquarters; (3) plaintiffs did not conduct discovery to develop a factual or legal basis for their claims; (4) plaintiffs' counsel filed suit without first conducting an appropriate Rule 11 inquiry and withdrew from representation, forcing GISD to obtain dismissal by motion for summary judgment; and (5) plaintiffs continued to prosecute this suit, in the face of the EEOC's findings, after their counsel's withdrawal, in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, and after having been expressly advised during two plaintiffs' depositions that they risked imposition of sanctions. GISD avers that this conduct is sanctionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

A

Section 706(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), provides that a district court may allow a prevailing party⁸ in a Title VII action a reasonable attorney's fee. A prevailing plaintiff ordinarily should recover a fee unless special circumstances would render an award unjust. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 2735, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (citing Newman v. Piggie Park Enter., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 966, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968)). This principle does not apply, however, to a prevailing defendant. Zipes, 109 S.Ct. at 2735 (citing Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 418, 98 S.Ct. 694, 698, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978)). When a suit is brought in good faith, a successful defendant can be awarded fees "only `upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.'" Zipes, 109 S.Ct. at 2735-36 (quoting...