Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07129/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07129-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 15-7128 September Term, 2016

 FILED ON: JANUARY 24, 2017

WAYNE NELSON,

APPELLANT

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

APPELLEE

Consolidated with 15-7129, 15-7130, 15-7131, 15-7132, 15-7133 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:10-cv-01750)

Before: BROWN, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judges.

J U D G M E N T

These appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia and were briefed and argued by the parties. The Court has accorded the issues

full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR.

R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, on the record presented, the district court judgment be

affirmed. Appellants have called the Court’s attention to troubling statistics regarding the discipline

meted out to African-American employees of the District of Columbia Fire Department. A report

produced at the request of the District of Columbia does indeed indicate African-American

firefighters were disciplined at a rate several times that of their Caucasian colleagues during the

period from 2005 through 2007, and Appellants contend this pattern has not ameliorated in

subsequent years. Theysubmit theythemselves have fallen victim to disparate discipline due to their

race as well as other racially-discriminatory actions. 

There is certainly smoke here, and there may even be fire. Nonetheless, for the reasons

articulated by the district court, Appellants have failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact

USCA Case #15-7129 Document #1657003 Filed: 01/24/2017 Page 1 of 2
regarding their individual disparate treatment claims. See Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085, 1092

(D.C. Cir. 2015) (noting a plaintiff must “raise an inference strong enough to let a reasonable

factfinder conclude that discrimination has occurred”). Accordingly, Appellants fall far short of

establishing a policy and practice of intentional discrimination on the part of the District of

Columbia, the sole Appellee. See Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (“[I]t is

when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those

whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the

government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”). In affirming the district court’s grant of

summary judgment, the Court expresses no view as to the evidentiary bona fides of any future case

examining this issue on a disparate impact theory of liability.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed

to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition

for rehearing or petition for hearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #15-7129 Document #1657003 Filed: 01/24/2017 Page 2 of 2