James Hunt v. City of Markham, Illinois
219 F.3d 649, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15903, 83 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 635 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Discriminatory remarks made by decision-makers or individuals who influence employment decisions, when made around the time of and in reference to an adverse action, can constitute direct evidence of discrimination. The denial of a raise or a temporary promotion, unlike a discretionary bonus, generally qualifies as an 'adverse employment action' for which relief can be granted under anti-discrimination statutes.
Facts:
- Four white police officers, Hunt, Clayton, Barron, and Gordon, were employed by the City of Markham, a Chicago suburb.
- The City of Markham's government, including the mayor, city council, and board of fire and police commissioners, was controlled by black officials.
- From 1993 to sometime after 1997, the mayor and other black officials made repeated racist and ageist comments to or about the plaintiffs, such as wanting 'to get rid of all the old white police officers' and stating 'it is the blacks’ turn to self-govern in Markham, and if you are white, get out.'
- Hunt and Clayton were denied raises in 1996 and 1997.
- Barron was denied a temporary promotion to sergeant.
- Gordon quit his job after being told by the chief of police that he would never perform up to the mayor’s expectations.
- The City of Markham gave a temporary promotion to a black patrolman after he was released from prison for having violated a resident's civil rights while a police officer.
Procedural Posture:
- Four white police officers (Hunt, Clayton, Barron, and Gordon) sued the City of Markham, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
- The plaintiffs filed their suit in federal district court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, the City of Markham, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
- The plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 the denial of a raise or a temporary promotion constitute an 'adverse employment action' under anti-discrimination statutes, and can discriminatory remarks made by city officials responsible for or influencing employment decisions serve as evidence of discriminatory motivation, thereby precluding summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge
Yes, the denial of a raise and a temporary promotion can constitute an adverse employment action, and discriminatory remarks made by decision-makers or those who influence decisions are evidence of discriminatory motivation, making summary judgment inappropriate. The court clarified the 'stray remarks' doctrine, stating that remarks made by decision-makers or those providing input, when made around the time of and in reference to the adverse employment action, can be evidence of discrimination. Here, the mayor, despite not voting, influenced the city council's actions, making his derogatory comments relevant evidence. The court distinguished the denial of a raise from the denial of a bonus, explaining that raises are generally expected, necessary to offset inflation, and reward productivity, thus impacting real wages and being more likely to reflect discriminatory intent. Evidence that black supervisors received raises and perks while white supervisors did not, despite the city's financial claims, created a triable issue. For Barron, the court found that the denial of a temporary promotion was an adverse employment action, and his failure to pass the sergeant's test was irrelevant, as temporary promotions did not require passing it. The city's promotion of a black patrolman with a criminal record, while denying Barron a similar opportunity, further suggested discrimination. Regarding Gordon's constructive discharge claim, the court rejected the defendant's argument that conditions were not severe enough because other plaintiffs did not quit. It held that being repeatedly told one is unwanted, has no future, and will not receive raises could render continued employment intolerable, consistent with a claim of constructive discharge. The court cited cases such as _Wichmann v. Board of Trustees_ and _Sheehan v. Donlen Corp._ for the relevance of discriminatory comments from influential sources, and _Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth_ for promotions as adverse actions.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the definition of 'adverse employment action' by distinguishing between the denial of a raise and a bonus, thus expanding the scope of actionable discriminatory conduct related to compensation. It also clarifies the 'stray remarks' doctrine, emphasizing that discriminatory comments are not mere 'stray remarks' if made by individuals directly involved in or influencing employment decisions and linked to the adverse action. This ruling strengthens plaintiffs' ability to bring discrimination claims based on patterns of derogatory comments and provides a clearer framework for courts to evaluate evidence of discriminatory intent, making it more challenging for employers to obtain summary judgment in such cases and potentially leading to more cases proceeding to trial.
