1 

## FIL ED AU G 25, 2009 LEO NARD GREEN, Clerk NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0602n.06 F ile Nam e: 09a0602n.06 No. 08-4403 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT NED CAMERON, JR ., Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. STATE OF OHI O (DEPARTM ENT OF YOUTH SERVI CES), c/o Thomas Strickrath, Dire ctor, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PE A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B EF OR E: B OG GS, RO GE RS, a nd WHI TE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s.

RO GE RS, C ir c uit Judg e . Pla int if f Ne d Came ro n, an A fr ic an- Am e ri c an, wo rk e d a s a pa ro le office r for defe ndant Ohio Depa

rtment of Youth Servic es (DY S) for fif teen y ear s. DYS terminated Cameron, a lleg edly

for f ailing to c omplete his prog ress re ports in a t imely fashion. Camer on broug ht suit ag ainst the DYS, claiming that he wa s discriminated aga i n s t b eca use of his ra ce a

nd ag e. Although the district court initially denied DY S’s motion for s u m m ar y j udg ment, the cour t

re c on sid e re d it s p os iti on

and fo un d th a t Came ro n wa s no t sim ila rl y sit uate d to a ny oth e r e mpl oy e e s,

an d t h e r e f o r e t h a tC a m e r o n c o u l d n o t m a k e o u t a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i m i n a t i o nu n d e r

T i t l e V II. I n d oin g so , th e c ourt

pr op e rl y de te rm ine d that

DY S wa s e nti tle d to su mma ry jud g me nt b e c a

us eNo. 08-4403

Cameron v. Ohio (

De p’ t of Y ou th S e rv s. )

- 2 - Cameron ha s not shown that he was tre ated diff ere ntly than similarl y situated employ ees w ere treated. I n 1990, Cameron beg an working for the D YS in Col umbus, Ohio. Cameron wa s hired as a socia l worker , but later took a job a s a par ole offic er c over i n g a rur al ar ea. I n that position, Cameron supe rvised juvenile of fende rs on par ole; his duties included counseling , ens uring

c omp lia nc e wi th r e le a se re qu ir e me nts , and a tte nd ingc ourt

pr oc e e din g s. DY S r e qu ir e d Ca me ro n to pr e pa re and fi le re po rt s re g ard ing e a c h pa ro le e ’s pr og re ss. Came ro n atte nd e d tr a ini ngon ho w t o f ile the se re po rt s. I n ear ly 2005, Cameron wa s subject to disciplina ry ac t ion that led to his transfer to the Day ton, Ohio reg ion. At a disciplinary hear ing in January

2005, DYS deter

mined that Cameron ha d failed to sub mit his repor

ts and had inac curately

repor ted information in his repor ts. DYS discharg ed Cameron, e ffe ctive F ebrua ry 17, 2005. I n response , Cameron f iled a g rieva

nce, stating that he had be e n r e mov e d w ith ou t ju st c a us e . Ca me ro n a lso fi le d a

c ha rg e wi th th e Ohio Civ il Ri g hts C o m m i s s i o n , al l egi n g t h at DY S d i s cr i m i n at edaga i n s th i m o nt h e ba s i s o f r ac e, d i s ab i l i t y , an d age . Cameron a

nd DYS settled their dispute in a for mal ag ree ment that allowed Came ron to kee p his job. Pur su ant t o th a t a g re e me nt, Came ro n w a s su sp e nd e d f or fi ft e e n d ay s, he vo luntari ly tr ans fe rr e d to the Da y ton , O hio re g ion , a

nd he a g re e d to wi thd

ra w h is c ivi l r ig hts c omp la int

. Ca me ro nw o r

k e d a s a p ar o l e o f

f i c e r i nD Y S ’ s D ay

t o nr e g i o n

f r o m A p r i l 4 , 2 0 0 5 , u n t il N o v e mb e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 5

. Ca

me r o n a g a in s e r

v e d in a r u r a l ar e a ; h e w o r

k e d in th e f

ie ld f rom Monday t h r o u g h T h u r s d ay an d

i n t h e D a yt o no f f i c e o nF r i d ays . Cameron c h ecked in with his supervisor, Kevin Shepher d, ever

y day . Cameron’ s duties in Day ton were simil ar to those of his prior position,No. 08-4403

Cameron v. Ohio (

De p’ t of Y ou th S e rv s. )

- 3 - and included submitting r eports re g ardingthe par olees within ce rtai n time frame s. Howeve r, Came ro n a lle g e s th a t th e Da y ton of fi c e ’s re po rt ingpr oc e dure s w e re mor e ri g or ou s t han th os e in Col umb us , a

nd that he wa s n ot p ro pe rl y tr a ine d to com ple te the se re po rt s. Came ro n u se d a DY Sissued laptop to prepa

re these reports and re ceive d computer tra ining on how to use the laptop for thi s p ur po se . K a thr

y n B e nto n, Came ro n’ s p re de c e sso r, wor ked wi th C a me ro n f or tw o w e e ks to familiarize him with the positi on. Be nton completed all the a ssigne d repor ts dur ing this transition period. C a

me r o n r e c e iv e d additional training reg ardingcase manag ement two months into his t enure in the Day

ton reg ion. Came ro n a lle g e dly

ha d d if fi c ult y c omp le tin g his re po rt s in a tim e ly fa sh ion . L e ss t

ha n s ix

wee ks after

Cameron a ssumed his caseloa d, he wa s delinquent on 30 repor ts. I n May

2005, DYS de te rm ine d that Came ro n wa s de lin qu e nt on his re po rt s, and She ph e rd re qu ir e d Came ro n to c ome in to the Day

ton office ever

y day for a two-we ek period to reduce this backlog . Cameron, howe ver,

was una ble to complete a ll his out standing repor ts in this time period. Shepherd nex t reque sted that Cameron a

nd his union advisor cr eate an ac tion plan describinghow Cameron pla nned to catch up on his work by

J uly 15, 2005. Cameron submitted, and Shephe rd ap p roved, suc h a plan whe reby Came ro n w ou ld w or

k fr om the of

fi c e un til July

15 . Ca me ro n r e c e ive d mo re tr a ini nga bo ut u sin g his laptop to c omplete the re ports. Cameron did not bec ome cur rent on his re ports in the time allotted. DYS investigated the situation and terminate d Cameron’ s employ ment. On Octobe r 25, 2005, a pre -disciplinary hear ing was held and the hear ing office r deter mined that Cameron’ s failure to timely comply with the report deadlines violated DYS policy . Cameron c ited sever al re asons for his de lin qu e nc y , in c lud ing : a br ok e n lap top , a

n in a bil ity to u nd e rs tand the re po rt s, an in a

bil ity to u seNo. 08-4403

Cameron v. Ohio (

De p’ t of Y ou th S e rv s. )

- 4 - the computer , a hea

vy case load, and a

high a mount of trave l. The hearing office r noted, howe ver, that Cameron ha d rec eived a dditional office support and computer training , that Cameron wa s g iven

an u p- to- date c asel oad whe n he be g an th e job , a nd that Came ro n c ho se to c ov e r t he ru ra l are a to which he w as assig ned. The hear ing of fice r found just cause for discipli ne, and terminated Camer on. Cameron now a sserts that Shepher d was sabota g ing his re p o r ts a n d ma nipulating the tr acking sheets to show that Camer on was late on his reports. Camer on alleg es that, in some instance s, he

was c harg ed with having incomplete reports thoug h those repor ts were either a ctually

complete or incorre ctly

attributed t o him. Cameron also alleg es t hat s ome reports wer e tracked a s “late” when their due date was ove r a w eeke nd. Cameron never raised these issues to his union repre sentative. Cameron a lso alleg es that he w as trea ted diffe rently

than other e mploy ees supe rvised by Shepherd wer e treated. Shepherd supervised six parole office rs. One of these e mploy ees w as Sara h Thompson, who is Caucasian. Thompson wa s a probationary employ ee at the time of Cameron’ s discharg e, bec ause she was new to the parole offic er position. Thompson was neve r disciplined for late re ports, and her

mid-probation prog ress re view stated that she completed repor ts on tim e 99% of th e ti me . H o w e v e r , th e p r o g r e s s r e v ie w ma r k e d h e r a s f a il in g to me e t h e r

g o a l o f c o mp leting repor ts on tim e. On Octobe r 17, 2006, Camer on filed suit ag ainst DYS in the U.S. District Co u rt fo r the Sou the rn Di str ic t of Oh io, a lle g ing that DY S dis c ri min a te d and re ta liate d a g a ins t hi m on the ba sis of his ra c e a nd

a g e in v iol a tio n o f Ti tle VI I and the AD EA

. Ma g ist rate Judg e Ki ngwa s a ssi g ne d toNo. 08-4403

Cameron v. Ohio (

De p’ t of Y ou th S e rv s. )

Ac tio ns of the Ma g istrate Judg e are a c c or din g ly re fe rr e d to a s a c tio ns of the dis tr ic t c ourt

. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). - 5 - the ca se, with the par

ties’ consent. Upon DYS’s motion, the cour t dismi ssed the ag e discrimination 1 claims. DYS then m o v ed fo r s u m mary judgme nt on the rema ining c laims. The cour t gr anted summary judgme nt on the retal iation claims, and denie d summary judgme nt on the rac e discrimination claims. Cam e ro n v . O hio , N o. 2:0 6- CV -8 71 , 2 00 8 WL 20 02 56 0, a t *1 (S .D . O hio May 7, 2008). The c ourt deter mined that Cameron ha d raised a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t about whether another simil arly situated employ ee, T hompson, w as treated more favor ably , and ther efor e that the claim wa

rra nted trial. Id. at *8-12. DYS moved the court under Fe d. R. Civ. P. 59(e) f or re consideration of the order . The c ourt deter mined that Cameron wa s not simi larly situated to Thompson, a

nd there fore a cle ar e rror

of law had occurre d beca

use C amer on could not make out a disc rimination claim. Cam e ro n v . O hio , No. 2:06-CV-871, 2008 WL4186313, at *4-5 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 4, 2008). The court gra nted DYS’s motion for rec onsideration and g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of

DYS. Id. at *5. Altho u gh the court tre a te d

D Y S’ s mo ti o na s o n e b r o u g h t u n d e r Ru le 5 9 ( e ) , th e c o u rt’ s in it ia l d e n ia l of

summar y ju d g me n t w a s n o t a

f in a l j u d g me n t a

n d th e “ s tr ic tu

r e s ” o f Ru le 5 9 ( e ) d id

n o t, th e r efor e, apply

. See R ussell v. GTE Gov’ t Sys. Corp. , 141 F. App’x 429, 436 (6th Cir. 2005). Rather, D YS’s motion was eff

ectively a re newe d motion f

or summary

judgme nt and “[t] he district cour t was there fore fre e to r econside r or reve rse its de cision for a ny rea son.” Id. ; see also W

hitford v. Boglino , 63 F .3 d 5 27 , 5 30 (7 th C ir . 1 99 5) . Ca me ro n n owa

pp e a ls.No. 08-4403

Cameron v. Ohio (

De p’ t of Y ou th S e rv s. )

On m o t i o n fo r summary judgme nt, DYS contended that the only evidenc e of dire ct 2 discrimination was t he warning of Teresa Fitts-Ardley , Cameron’ s union repre sentative, “ to be ver y car eful” of S hepher d. Motion for Summary J udg ment 10, Cam e ro n v . O hio , No. 2:06-CV-871 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2007). The c ourt found that this did not constitut e dire ct evidenc e. Camer on a ba nd on e d a ny su c h c la im on ap pe a l: “T he fa c t tha t the re is no dir e c t e vid e nc e of dis c ri min a tio n is completely

insignifica

nt.” Appellant’ s Br . at 21. On su mma ry jud g me nt, Came ro n a

rgue d th a t he wa s sim ila

rl y sit uate d to f our e mpl oy e e s: 3 Thompson, Ky le Dickinson, R ita Warrion, and Kathry n Be nton. On appea l, however , Cameron me nti on s t he othe r t

hr e e e mpl oy e e s b ut d oe s n ot d e ve lop his le g a l argume nt r e g ard ingthe m. “[I ]ss ues adver

ted to in a perf

unctory manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at de v eloped argumentation, are deeme d waived.” McPhe rson v. Kelsey , 125 F.3d 9 8 9 , 9 9 5 (6 th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Even if w e we re to c onsider the o t her e mploy ees, w e would not find them compar able for the rea sons stated in the district court’s fir st decision. Cameron , 2008 WL 2002560, at *8-10. - 6 - DYS was e ntitled to sum mary judgme nt beca

use Ca me r o n w a s n ot treate d less favor ably than simil arly situated non-prote cted e mploy ees w ere treated. Havi n g n o evidenc e of dire ct discrimination, Cameron’ s Title V I I claim, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, re lies on indirect evide nce unde r the 2 McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), fr amewor k. The parties ag ree that Cameron meets the first three fac tors of the Mc Do nn e ll D ou

gla s test. They disag ree over the final fac tor: whether

Cameron ha s shown that he wa s treate d less favor ably than similarly

situated non-protec ted employ ees unde r Mitchell v. Toledo Hospital , 964 F.2d 577, 582- 83 (6th Cir. 1992). On appe al, Cameron a sserts that he wa s simil arly situated to employ ee T hompson. 3 DY S wa s e nti tle d to su mma ry jud g me nt b e c a

us e Th omp so n wa s not s uf fi c ie ntl y c omp a ra ble to Cameron. Thompson and Came ron did not “eng ag e[] in the s am e conduct without such differ entiating or mitigating c ircumstance s that would distinguish their conduct or the employ er’ s treatment of them for it.” Id. at 583. Thompson and Camer on differ ed in their a bility (or lac kNo. 08-4403

Cameron v. Ohio (

De p’ t of Y ou th S e rv s. )

- 7 - there of) to complete repor ts in a timely

fashion. Ac cordingto DYS, Thompson ex hibited no perf ormanc e def

iciencie s and her

mid-prob at i on revie w stated that “ Ms. Thompson does an

ou tst and ingjob of

su bmi tti nghe r r e po rt s o n ti me . Sh e ha s subm itt e d b e tte r t ha n 9 9% of he r r e po rt s on time.” Shepherd Aff. 1 ¶ 21 & Ex hibit A. De spite this, Thompson’s review mar ked her a s failing to achieve her g oal of submitting reports in a ti mely manner . Cameron asserts t hat this inconsistency is e vid e nc e of

bia s o r e vid e nc e that th e fo rm wa s a lte re d. I n v ie wi ngthe fa c ts i n th e lig ht m os t favor able to Camer on, it may be possible to a ssume that Thompson did fail to complete some portion of her repor ts in a timely fashion. Howeve r, there is no indication that Thompson’s shortcoming was

any wh e re ne ar a s si g nif

ic ant a s Came ro n’ s. Came ro n w a s lo g g e d a s b e ingla te on 30 re po rt s in Apr il 2005, 56 repor

ts in J uly 2005, 66 repor

ts in August 2005, 62 re ports in September 2005, and 62

re po rt s in Oc tob e r 2 00 5. Ev e n if

the se numb ers are no t e nti re ly a c c ur a te , a s Came ro n a sse rt s, Ca m e r o n d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h a t h e w a s l a t e o n a l a r g e e n o u g h v o l u m e o f r e p o rt s t o b e s u b j e c t to repe a te d d is c ip li n ar

y a c ti o n . T h is s u r

p a s s e s T h o mp s o n ’ s a ll e g e d late n e s s , w h ic h th e e v id e n ce supports is between 99% on time and alwa y s timely . Cameron pr esents no ev i d en ce t hat any defic iency

on the part of Thompson was of “ ‘ c om pa ra blese rio us ne

ss ’” to his own . Stotts v. Me mp his Fi re D ept. , 8 5 8 F. 2 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 8 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Mc Do na ld v . S

an ta F e Tra il Transp. Co. , 427 U.S. 273, 283 n.11 (1976)). Came ron “ha s failed to eliminate the most common nondiscriminatory

rea son[] for the dif

fer ence s in the . . . discipline handed down by” DYS. Id. Ad dit ion a lly , Ca

me ro n h a d a

lon g e r t e nure wi th t he DY S th an T ho mps on , w hic h w a s a “diffe rentiating

. . . circ umstance[]” that acc ounts for DYS’s differ ing treatment. Mi tc he ll , 964 F.2d at 583. Cameron ha d been w orking at DYS for f ifteen y ear s wh er ea s T h ompson was a ne wNo. 08-4403

Cameron v. Ohio (

De p’ t of Y ou th S e rv s. )

- 8 - e mpl oy e e . D YS c ou ld h a ve be e n les s will ing to fo rg ive an e mpl oy e e ’s ina bil ity to c omp le te re po rt s in a timely

fashion g iven ex tensive ex perie nce, tha n to forg ive a similar def

iciency in an employ ee jus t le arn ingthe ro pe s. F ina lly , n on e of

Came ro n’ s r e a so ns wh y

he wa s un a

ble to c omp le te his re po rt s in a tim e ly fashion is rele vant under

the Mc Do nn e ll D ou

gla s analy sis. For instance, Cameron alleg es that he

was not a ble to w ork on his c omputer with pr oficienc y , that the Day ton of fice had new a n d m ore dif fi c ult re po rt ingre qu ir e me nts tha n h e e xpe ri e nc e d in Col umb us , that hi s p re de c e sso r f a ile d to tr a in him on the Day

ton of fice repor ting, and that he had mor e ca ses than the avera g e rur al par ole offic er. Ho we ve r, Came ro n d oe s n ot a lle g e that ot he r e mpl oy e e s r e c e ive d mor e tr a ini ngor a dd iti on a l he lp on their re ports, but only that his job was in itself difficult to complete. The se explanations do not show that Cameron w as beingtreated diffe rently than similarly

situated employ ees w ere treated. AFF I RMED.