Perkins v. Lake County Department of Utilities
1994 WL 455112, 860 F.Supp. 1262, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16790 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of establishing a prima facie case under Title VII, an employee's membership in a protected class is determined not by provable genetic ancestry, but by the employer's perception that the employee is a member of that class, especially when supported by objective factors like physical appearance and the employee's self-identification.
Facts:
- Arthur Perkins was employed as a Laborer for the Lake County Department of Utilities.
- Perkins consistently identified as an American Indian, a heritage his parents had always told him about.
- Perkins's coworkers and an expert in Native American affairs stated that his physical appearance was consistent with that of an American Indian.
- The Department's own employment records listed one American Indian employee, who was presumed to be Perkins.
- Perkins alleged that during his employment, he was subjected to derogatory racial comments and was denied promotions and opportunities for advancement.
- Specifically, Perkins claimed that on July 2, 1990, he was denied a promotion to Site Supervisor I, a position that was then given to a white employee.
- After Perkins filed his lawsuit, the Department hired a genealogical expert to research his ancestry.
- The Department's expert concluded that Perkins had no provable ancestral ties to any recognized Indian Nation and possessed less than one-sixteenth Indian blood, with most ancestors listed in historical records as 'white,' 'mulatto,' or 'free colored'.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Perkins (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the Lake County Department of Utilities and its commissioners (Defendants) in the United States District Court.
- The complaint alleged disparate treatment and racial discrimination in violation of Title VII.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff was not an American Indian and therefore not a member of a protected class under Title VII.
- Defendants filed a second motion for partial summary judgment, arguing Plaintiff was not qualified for the promotions sought due to a past criminal conviction.
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 an employee who self-identifies as a member of a protected class (American Indian) and is perceived as such by their employer qualify for Title VII protection against racial discrimination, even if their provable genetic ancestry is disputed or minimal?
Opinions:
Majority - Perelman, United States Magistrate Judge
Yes. An employee who is perceived to be a member of a protected class by their employer is entitled to protection under Title VII, regardless of whether they can definitively prove their ancestry. The court reasoned that Title VII is designed to combat discrimination based on perceived differences, not to enforce entitlement based on genetic purity. The court distinguished this case from those involving tribal membership or government benefits, where blood quantum and lineage are relevant. In the context of employment discrimination, the key is the employer's perception and discriminatory animus. Here, there was sufficient objective evidence—including Perkins's physical appearance, his consistent self-identification, and the employer's own records—to establish that the employer regarded him as an American Indian. Therefore, the employer cannot defeat a discrimination claim at the summary judgment stage by belatedly challenging the employee's racial heritage.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the definition of membership in a protected class for Title VII purposes, shifting the focus from an employee's actual ancestry to the employer's perception. It establishes that if an employer discriminates based on a belief about an employee's race, that belief is sufficient to bring the employee under the protection of Title VII. This precedent makes it more difficult for employers to evade liability by launching post-hoc investigations into an employee's genealogy. The ruling reinforces that the purpose of anti-discrimination law is to eliminate prejudice in the workplace, which is based on subjective perceptions, not scientific or genealogical precision.
Unlock the full brief for Perkins v. Lake County Department of Utilities