Williams v. Akron

• Decision Date: 14 December 2005
• Docket Number: No. 2004-0695.,2004-0695.
• Parties: WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. CITY OF AKRON, Appellee, et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 1169

837 N.E.2d 1169

107 Ohio St.3d 203

2005-Ohio-6268

WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. CITY OF AKRON, Appellee, et al.

No. 2004-0695.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 11, 2005.

Decided December 14, 2005.

Thompson & Bishop, Dennis R. Thompson, and Christy B. Bishop, Akron; and Gittes & Schulte and Frederick M. Gittes, Columbus, for appellant.

Patricia Ambrose Rubright, Cheri B. Cunningham, and Deborah M. Forfia, Assistant Directors of Law; and Brose McDowell and Clair E. Dickenson, for appellee.

Gittes & Schulte, Frederick M. Gittes and Kathaleen B. Schulte, Columbus, urging reversal for amici curiae, United Black Firefighters of Akron, Vanguards of Cleveland, the Ohio Employment Lawyers Association, Ohio Now Education and Legal Defense Fund, and the Ohio Civil Rights Coalition.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.

I. Introduction

{¶ 1} This appeal requires us to determine whether an appellate court may review a prima facie case to determine whether a directed verdict should have been granted, after there has been a trial on the merits in a discrimination case. For the following reasons, we answer this question in the affirmative and affirm the court of appeals.

II. Facts and Procedure

{¶ 2} Appellant, Gerald Williams, was employed with appellee, Akron, as a police officer. On March 22, 1997, after an argument, Williams slapped his wife in the head. Williams's wife then called 9-1-1 and reported that he had beaten her. Her call angered Williams, who then hit her again, breaking her jaw. Williams was indicted on domestic-violence charges but eventually pleaded guilty to aggravated menacing.

{¶ 3} Williams initially lied to internal-affairs investigators about the incident. The city fired Williams, citing his attack on his wife, as well as his failure to be truthful to the internal-affairs investigators regarding the assault. Williams's discharge was upheld by the Civil Service Commission.

{¶ 4} On November 23, 1999, Williams filed a complaint against the city alleging that his discharge had been motivated by racial discrimination. The city filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Williams had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The trial court denied the motion, and the case went to trial.

{¶ 5} At the close of Williams's evidence, the city moved for a directed verdict, again arguing that Williams had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which the court denied. At the close of all the evidence, the city renewed its motion for a directed verdict, again arguing that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which the trial court again denied. The court instructed the jury that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Williams had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) "[h]e is a member of a protected class," (2) "[h]e suffered an adverse unemployment action," (3) "[h]e was qualified for the position," and (4) "he was treated differently than a similarly situated white officer." The court then instructed "as a matter of law that Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and suffered an adverse employment action." However, the court instructed the jury that it would have to determine whether Williams "was qualified for the position" and whether Williams "was treated differently than a similarly situated white officer." The jury returned a verdict for Williams in the amount of $1.72 million.

{¶ 6} On appeal, the city's first assignment of error alleged, "The trial court incorrectly denied the City's Motion for a Directed Verdict at the close of Plaintiff's case." The Ninth District Court of Appeals held that Williams's evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because "Williams failed to satisfy the fourth prong of the McDonnell Douglas analysis in that he did not establish that he * * * was treated differently from similarly situated employees outside the protected class." Thus, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and entered judgment in favor of the city.

{¶ 7} The appellate court certified its decision as being in conflict with Yelton v. Stehlin (Aug. 20, 1999), 1st Dist. No. C-980503, 1999 WL 631002, and Pelletier v. Rumpke Container Serv. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 54, 753 N.E.2d 958, from the First District Court of Appeals, and with Toole v. Cook (May 6, 1999), 10th Dist. No. 98AP-486, 1999 WL 280804. Those cases hold that in a discrimination case on appeal, after a trial on the merits in favor of the plaintiff, an appellate court cannot revisit the plaintiff's prima facie case to determine whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case.¹ Instead, an appellate court must examine the entire record to determine whether it supports the verdict. Thus, the appellate court certified the following issue: "Whether a court can return to consider the prima facie case after a trial on the merits in a discrimination case." This cause is now before this court upon our determination that a conflict exists.

{¶ 8} To provide a better understanding of this issue, we will first examine the unique framework that may be used to analyze a discrimination case, and was used in this case.

III. Analysis

A. The McDonnell Douglas Paradigm

{¶ 9} Because of the difficulty of proving a discrimination claim, especially where there is no direct evidence of discriminatory motive, the Supreme Court created an analytical framework to address "the order and allocation of proof" in such cases. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792, 800, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668.

1. The Prima Facie Case

{¶ 10} The initial step in the paradigm requires the plaintiff to "carry the initial burden under the statute of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination. This may be done by showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications." McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668. However, the elements of the prima facie case must remain flexible so that they can conform to the facts of the case. Id. at fn. 13.

{¶ 11} Establishing a prima facie case "creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee." Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981), 450 U.S. 248, 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207. "If the trier of fact believes plaintiff's evidence, and if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff because no issue of fact remains in the case." Id.; see, also, St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks (1993), 509 U.S. 502, 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407, quoting 1 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence (1977) 536, Section 67 ("To establish a `presumption' is to say that a finding of the predicate fact (here, the prima facie case) produces `a required conclusion in the absence of an explanation' (here, the finding of unlawful discrimination).")

2. The Employer's Burden of Production

{¶ 12} If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, then the burden of production shifts to the employer to present evidence of "a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" for the employer's rejection of the employee. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207. If the employer submits admissible evidence that "taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action," then the employer has met its burden of production. (Emphasis sic.) St. Mary's, 509 U.S. at 509, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407. At this point, the presumption created by the prima facie case drops from the case because the employer's evidence has rebutted the presumption of discrimination. Id. at 510, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407.

{¶ 13} However, If the employer fails to meet its burden of production and "reasonable minds could differ as to whether a preponderance of the evidence establishes the facts of a prima facie case," then the question of whether the employer discriminated must be decided by the fact finder. (Emphasis sic.) Id., 509 U.S. at 509-510, 113 S.Ct. at 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407.

3. Pretext

{¶ 14} If the employer meets its burden of production, "the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207, citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668. "But a reason cannot be proved to be `a pretext for discrimination' unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason." (Emphasis sic.) St. Mary's, 509 U.S. at 515, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407. A case that reaches this point is decided by the trier of fact on the ultimate issue of whether the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff.

B. Ohio Law Permits a Trial Court to Review a Prima Facie Case

{¶ 15} The conflict cases cited by the appellate court rely on United States Postal Serv. v. Aikens (1983), 460 U.S. 711, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403, which states that an appellate court cannot review a prima facie case of discrimination once the case has been tried on the merits. In Aikens, the plaintiff sued the Postal Service, alleging racial discrimination. The Postal Service filed a motion for dismissal at the close of Aikens's case, alleging that he had failed to establish a prima facie case, which the district court initially denied. Id. at 714, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403, fn. 4. However, at some point...