Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06309/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Appellee
Robert L. Warren
Appellant

Document Text:

,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT F l L ::u otlppea\r 

U -.. ~ States C,ot.r. t • 

ntwu "~"nth Circuit 

ROBERT L. WARREN, D.D.S. 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

GARY D. MAYNARD, as the Director; 

JON TILLINGHAST, M.D., as the former 

Medical Director and individually, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6309 

(D.C. No. 91-105-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before BALDOCK and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BABCOCK,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, District Judge, 

District Court for the District of Colorado, 

designation. 

United States 

sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6309 Document: 010110151444 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 1 
.. 

Plaintiff Robert L. Warren appeals the district court's grant 

of summary judgment to defendants on Warren's racial 

discrimination claims. Warren, a black male, is employed as a 

dentist by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC). He 

brought suit against his employer and individual defendants 

Maynard and Tillinghast, alleging disparate treatment based on his 

race, resulting in a lower salary than that paid to other dentists 

at DOC. 1 His complaint asserted claims based on the Equal Pay 

Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

and the Fourteenth Amendment. 

judgment. 

Defendants moved for summary 

In granting summary judgment, the district court's order held 

that 1) the Equal Pay Act is inapplicable to Warren's racial 

discrimination claims, 2) the DOC is immune from suit on Warren's 

§ 1983 claim, 3) the individually-named defendants, sued in their 

official capacities, are likewise immune from Warren's claim for 

damages, 4) Warren did not meet his burden to show that the salary 

disparity between him and other DOC dentists was based on race 

such that his claim for injunctive relief against defendants 

Maynard and Tillinghast could survive summary judgment, 

5) defendant Tillinghast, sued in his individual capacity, is 

qualifiedly immune from suit, and 6) Warren's Title VII claim 

1 In his affidavit supporting his brief in response to 

defendants' summary judgment motion, Warren alleges disparate 

treatment "in addition to the disparity in my salary," pointing to 

a facility reassignment. However, that point was not argued to 

the district court, nor is it at issue on appeal. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6309 Document: 010110151444 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 2 
fails because he failed to present specific, nonconclusory 

evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an inference of 

discriminatory intent. Warren filed a motion to reconsider, 

arguing that the dismissal of his Title VII claim was ' 2 improper. 

The district court denied this motion, and Warren filed a timely 

notice of appeal. 3 

Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises from 28 U.S.C . 

§ 1291. 4 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same standard as the district court under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First 

Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990), and 

we review the district court's denial of Warren's motion to 

reconsider under an abuse of discretion standard, Committee for 

the First Amendment v. Campbell, 962 F.2d 1517, 1523 (10th Cir. 

1992). We affirm. 

2 We construe Warren's motion to reconsider, filed within ten 

days of the district court's order granting summary judgment to 

defendants, as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Dalton v. First Interstate Bank of 

Denver, 863 F.2d 702, 703 (10th Cir. 1988). 

3 Although Warren's notice of appeal designated only the 

district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration as 

the order being appealed, we construe his notice of appeal to 

include the district court's earlier order on the merits, because, 

on appeal, Warren includes arguments about his§ 1983 claim, and 

appellees address the§ 1983 claim in their brief. See Grubb v. 

FDIC, 868 F.2d 1151, 1154 n.4 (10th Cir. 1989) (appellate court may 

treat appeal as from final judgment if intent to appeal from that 

judgment is clear and opposing party not misled or prejudiced). 

4 Warren invokes pendent jurisdiction as to his state claims. 

Appellant's Brief at 1. However, he pursued no state claims 

before the district court and argued none in his motion to 

reconsider. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6309 Document: 010110151444 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 3 
On appeal, Warren appears to argue that the district court 

erred in dismissing his Title VII claim, Tillinghast is not 

qualifiedly immune, and he is entitled to injunctive relief under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although stated as three separate issues, the 

essence of Warren's arguments on appeal have a common theme. He 

contends that because he has alleged racial discrimination and 

because his starting and current salaries are lower than other 

dentists employed by the DOC, he is entitled to back pay, other 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, and prospective injunctive 

relief . 

Warren stated numerous allegations in support of his claims 

before the district court; however, none of 

link his race to the salary discrepancy. 

Warren's allegations 

Under either Title VII 

or 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Warren must present evidence probative of 

discriminatory intent. See Lewis v. City of Fort Collins, 903 

F.2d 752, 755 n . 1 (10th Cir. 1990). After a careful review of the 

record on appeal, we agree with the district court that Warren 

failed to present evidence which could support "even an inference 

of discriminatory motive." Appellant's Appendix, Doc. 16, 

District Court's Order at 8 . Without such supporting evidence, 

Warren's allegations of racial discrimination are conclusory; he 

cannot rely on them to survive defendants' summary judgment 

motion. See Lewis, 903 F.2d at 759. 

Warren repeatedly argues that any disparity, however small, 

is not equal treatment under the law. Nonetheless, these 

arguments are not relevant here because Warren has presented no 

specific factual evidence which could support a finding of 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6309 Document: 010110151444 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 4 
. . 

discriminatory intent. Salary disparities are not actionable per 

se under Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1983; disparate treatment must 

be motivated by impermissible discrimination. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6309 Document: 010110151444 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 5