Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02061/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02061-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

JEPHETH D. CHAFFIN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-2061

CITY OF FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 19th day of October, 2005, comes on for

consideration defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (document

#8), to which plaintiff has made no response, and from said

motion, and the supporting documentation, the Court finds and

orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title VII,

claiming racial discrimination in his employment by defendant.

Defendant denied the material allegations of the Complaint, and

now moves for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff cannot

establish the necessary elements of his claims. Plaintiff has not

responded to the motion, although the Court pointed out his lack

of response in its Order dated August 16, 2005, and noted that it

would allow plaintiff to file a belated response on or before

September 1, 2005, after which the motion would be ruled upon,

regardless of whether plaintiff had responded.

2. Summary judgment should be granted when the record,

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and

giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, shows

that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is

Case 2:05-cv-02061-JLH Document 15 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Walsh v. United States,

31 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is not appropriate

unless all the evidence points toward one conclusion, and is

susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of

the nonmoving party. Hardin v. Hussmann Corp., 45 F.3d 262 (8th

Cir. 1995). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the

non-existence of a genuine factual dispute; however, once the

moving party has met that burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest

on its pleadings, but must come forward with facts showing the

existence of a genuine dispute. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v.

Associated Electric Co-op, 838 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1988).

3. In support of its motion, defendant filed a Statement Of

Material Undisputed Facts. Plaintiff has not denied any of these

facts, and pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, they are deemed admitted.

Those facts are as follows: 

* Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of Title

VII.

* Defendant hired plaintiff as a seasonal employee for the

period of April 5, 2004, to September 7, 2004. Plaintiff remained

employed throughout this period.

* Each new employee of defendant is provided with a

handbook of defendant’s human resource policies. These policies

include information on defendant’s policy of harassment, and how

to make a complaint of harassment if it becomes necessary.

Case 2:05-cv-02061-JLH Document 15 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

* On June 23, 2004, four employees, including plaintiff,

found a rope tied into a noose in a building owned by defendant.

The employees brought the noose to the attention of defendant’s

Parks and Recreation Department. 

* An investigation into the incident was carried out on

June 24, 2005. The person who tied the noose was identified and

received counseling on defendant’s harassment policy. A meeting

was held with all staff of the Department to reinforce defendant’s

policy on equal treatment of all employees, and to stress that

defendant will not tolerate behavior that violates this policy.

* On July 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the EEOC, alleging that he had been subjected

to discrimination on the basis of his race.

* The EEOC mailed a Notice of Suit Rights to plaintiff on

January 10, 2005.

* Plaintiff’s suit was filed on April 8, 2005, nunc pro

tunc April 7, 2005.

* It is defendant’s policy to have regular full-time

employees drive its vehicles whenever possible. When no full-time

employee is available, the supervisor determines who will drive

based on the driving experience and assigned responsibilities of

available seasonal workers.

4. The Court commences its disposition of the pending

motion by ascertaining what causes of action plaintiff asserts.

Case 2:05-cv-02061-JLH Document 15 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
The rule of Haines v. Kerner does not extend to rules of procedure, as the Eighth 1

Circuit made clear in Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852 (8th

Cir. 1996)(“In general, pro se representation does not excuses a party from complying

with a court’s orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”).

-4-

The allegations of a pro se complaint are held to “less stringent

standards then formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), and the Court must, therefore, read

the document liberally to construe the true nature of the

allegations.1

Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge of Discrimination (presumably filled

out with the assistance of EEOC personnel) makes the following

allegations:

* that racial remarks had been made in his presence;

* that he was not allowed to drive the Departmental

vehicle;

* that he was forced to perform duties others were not

asked to perform;

* that the noose had been found and he did not believe

anything had been done about that situation; and 

* that his supervisor told him he “looked like a thug” and

did not trust him to drive the vehicle.

Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint makes the following allegations:

* that co-workers physically and verbally abused,

harassed, and threatened him;

* that his supervisor encouraged his co-workers to harass

him to try to make him quit his job;

Case 2:05-cv-02061-JLH Document 15 Filed 10/19/05 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

* that he was forced to perform duties that others were

not asked to do;

* that his supervisor constantly badgered him; and

* that his supervisor insinuated he was a gang member by

“throwing up” gang signs at him and telling him he

looked thuggish.

Giving the Complaint a liberal interpretation, fleshed out by

the EEOC Charge of Discrimination, the Court finds that plaintiff

has stated a claim that he was subjected to a racially hostile

work environment and that he was constructively discharged. 

5. In order to establish a hostile environment claim under

Title VII, plaintiff must prove the following:

* that he is a member of a protected group;

* that he was subjected to unwelcome harassment;

* that the harassment was because of his membership in the

protected group; and

* that the harassment affected a term, condition, or

privilege of his employment.

Singletary v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 423 F.3d 886

(8th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff is black, and is, therefore, a member of a

protected group. He alleges that “racial remarks” were made in

his presence, and that a noose was left on a table where he and

others found it. These allegations –- if proved –- would

Case 2:05-cv-02061-JLH Document 15 Filed 10/19/05 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
Defendant proposes, in its Statement Of Material Undisputed Facts, that plaintiff 2

“was not deprived of any terms or conditions of his seasonal employment.” While

plaintiff did not object to this proposition, the Court declines to treat it as an

undisputed proposition that none of the terms or conditions of plaintiff’s employment

were “affected.” While there might be some overlap, the terms “deprived” and “affected”

are not synonymous.

-6-

establish that he suffered harassment based on race. He claims

that such treatment was subjectively unwelcome, and the Court

believes reasonable finders of fact could also determine that it

would be objectively unwelcome. Thus the claim turns, as did that

in Singletary, on whether the alleged harassment affected a term,

condition, or privilege of plaintiff’s employment.2

For harassment to affect a condition of employment the

conduct must be severe as it would be viewed objectively

by a reasonable person and as it was actually viewed

subjectively by the victim. Hostile work environment

harassment occurs when the workplace is permeated with

discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that

is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the

conditions of the victim’s employment and create an

abusive working environment. To decide whether a work

environment is objectively offensive, that is, one which

a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, we

examine all the circumstances, including the frequency

of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it

is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere

offensive utterance, and whether the conduct

unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work

performance.

Singletary, 423 F.3d at 892-93 (internal citations and quotation

marks omitted).

In Singletary, the Eighth Circuit points out that racial

slurs, while morally repulsive, do not necessarily establish a

hostile environment case. It is the pervasiveness of such

language, and the degree to which it is directed at the plaintiff,

Case 2:05-cv-02061-JLH Document 15 Filed 10/19/05 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

that must be evaluated. In the case at bar, it is impossible to

evaluate the level and degree of racially derogatory remarks.

Defendant’s showing in support of its motion does not touch that

issue, and thus plaintiff is not put to his proof on that issue.

However, the allegations are sufficiently specific -- and

sufficiently serious -- to require one party or the other to come

forward with evidence. The Court therefore finds that defendant’s

motion, as it pertains to plaintiff’s claim of a hostile work

environment, must be denied.

6. With regard to plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim,

the result is different. “A constructive discharge occurs when an

employee resigns after the employer has created an intolerable

working environment in a deliberate attempt to compel such a

resignation.” MacGregor v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 373 F.3d 923 (8th

Cir. 2004). Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff worked the full

length of his term of seasonal employment, neither being

terminated nor resigning during that time. Plaintiff is,

therefore, unable to establish an essential element of this claim,

and summary judgment will be granted as to it.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion For Summary

Judgment (document #8) is granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is granted insofar as it seeks summary judgment in

favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim of constructive discharge,

and that claim is dismissed.

Case 2:05-cv-02061-JLH Document 15 Filed 10/19/05 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

The motion is denied insofar as it seeks summary judgment in

favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim of racially hostile work

environment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02061-JLH Document 15 Filed 10/19/05 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>