Shirley FERRILL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE PARKER GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant
168 F.3d 468 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's practice of making job assignments based on an employee's race constitutes intentional discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, regardless of whether the employer is motivated by racial animus or hostility.
Facts:
- The Parker Group, Inc. (TPG), a telephone marketing firm, performed 'get-out-the-vote' calls for political candidates.
- For some campaigns, TPG used a 'race-matched' calling system, assigning black employees to call black voters and white employees to call white voters.
- Employees involved in race-matched calling were given different scripts based on their race.
- To facilitate supervision of the race-matched calling, TPG physically segregated employees into separate rooms based on their race.
- Shirley Ferrill, an African-American woman, was hired as a temporary employee by TPG in 1994.
- Ferrill was assigned to make race-matched calls to black voters as part of her job.
- Following the election, Ferrill was laid off during a company-wide 'reduction in force'.
Procedural Posture:
- Shirley Ferrill sued The Parker Group, Inc. (TPG) in U.S. District Court for race discrimination in job assignment and termination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the District Court.
- The District Court granted TPG's motion on the termination claim but granted Ferrill's motion on the unlawful job assignment claim, finding TPG liable.
- A jury trial was held on the issue of damages, which resulted in an award to Ferrill of $500 in compensatory and $4000 in punitive damages.
- TPG, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment on liability and the jury's award of damages to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; Ferrill is the appellee.
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 employer's practice of assigning work based on an employee's race, without any evidence of racial animus, constitute intentional discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981?
Opinions:
Majority - Alaimo, Senior District Judge
Yes. An employer's policy of making job assignments based on race constitutes intentional discrimination under § 1981, even if the employer lacks any racial animus. The court reasoned that TPG's admission that it assigned calls and segregated employees by race constituted direct evidence of disparate treatment, establishing a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. Citing Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., the court held that liability under § 1981 requires only that employment decisions be premised on race, not that they be motivated by hostility or animus. The court further held that defenses available in other discrimination contexts, such as the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) and 'business necessity' defenses, are not available for claims of intentional racial discrimination under § 1981. The assignments were based on a racial stereotype about job performance, not a legitimate, remedial affirmative action plan. While affirming liability and compensatory damages, the court reversed the punitive damages award, finding that TPG's conduct, while discriminatory, did not rise to the level of malice or reckless indifference required for such an award, given the specific finding that TPG lacked racial animus.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that for the purposes of intentional discrimination under § 1981, the employer's motive is distinct from its intent. An employer intentionally discriminates when it knowingly uses race as a basis for an employment decision, regardless of whether the underlying motive is hostile, benign, or purely commercial. The decision reinforces that racial classifications in employment are subject to the highest scrutiny and that business convenience or customer preference are not valid defenses. By explicitly rejecting the applicability of BFOQ and business necessity defenses to § 1981 claims, the court significantly narrows the ability of employers to justify facially discriminatory racial practices, strengthening the statute's prohibition against all forms of race-based decision-making in contracting and employment.
Unlock the full brief for Shirley FERRILL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE PARKER GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant