Ferrill v. Parker Group, Inc.
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8632, 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 193, 967 F. Supp. 472 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Assignment of job duties and physical segregation of employees based solely on race constitutes unlawful employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, regardless of whether the employer's intent is benign, well-intentioned, or driven by perceived business practicability or political exigencies.
Facts:
- The Parker Group, Inc. (TPG) is a corporation that performs commercial database marketing, screen calling, polling, and lobbying work for various companies and political candidates.
- Shirley Ferrill worked as a temporary employee for TPG from September to November 1994, primarily making 'get out the vote' calls for Jim Folsom’s gubernatorial campaign.
- Approximately 10% of TPG's 'get out the vote' calling (which constituted 60% of its overall business) involved 'race-matched' calling.
- Race-matched calling meant that black callers called only black voters, and white callers called only white voters, based on the theory that voters would more readily identify with and be sympathetic to voices of their own race.
- During race-matched calling campaigns, callers were physically separated by race, with black callers placed together and white callers placed together in separate rooms, which TPG claimed was to ease supervision of different scripts and assignments.
- Shirley Ferrill was assigned to a group of black callers who attempted to 'get out the vote' for black voters during the Jim Folsom campaign.
- After the election, Ferrill and a substantial number of other temporary callers were released due to a 90% reduction in TPG’s business, which was an anticipated reduction-in-force.
- Race-matched calling was only employed by TPG when specifically requested by a customer, including clients like former Alabama Governor Jim Folsom.
Procedural Posture:
- Shirley Ferrill filed a lawsuit against The Parker Group, Inc. (TPG) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- TPG filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- Ferrill filed a cross-motion for summary judgment regarding TPG's liability for race-matched calling and segregation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does assigning job duties and physically segregating employees based solely on race, even for ostensibly benign or practical business reasons, constitute unlawful employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981?
Opinions:
Majority - Acker, District Judge
Yes, assigning job duties and physically segregating employees based solely on race, even for ostensibly benign or practical business reasons, constitutes unlawful employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Ferrill on the issue of racial assignments and segregation, but granted summary judgment for TPG regarding Ferrill's termination. The court found that Ferrill failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination under the `McDonnell Douglas` framework because her temporary position simply 'evaporated' after the campaign concluded, and was not filled by a non-minority. However, the court held that TPG's practice of race-matched calling and physical segregation based on race violated § 1981. Citing `Knight v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission`, the court stated that assigning job duties based solely on race is unlawful, even if the employer's actions are 'benign or well intentioned' and lack racial animus. The court emphasized that employers are forbidden from assigning work based on 'stereotyped assumptions,' and that 'practicability' or 'politics' do not serve as a legal defense to racial discrimination. TPG could not proffer a legally recognized defense to the discriminatory assignment.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that employment discrimination under § 1981 (and by extension Title VII) extends beyond animus-based actions to encompass any employment decision, including work assignments and segregation, based solely on race. It establishes a clear precedent that perceived business advantages, client requests, or good intentions cannot justify racial classifications in the workplace. The ruling may influence how employers in various industries, including advertising and entertainment, consider racial identity in hiring and casting decisions, especially where such decisions might be premised on 'cultural identity' or audience targeting.
