The Honor able Da n Aar on Polst er, U nited States District J udg e for the Northe rn District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0147n.06 Filed: Mar ch 14, 2008 NO. 07-1353 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT MARTICE BERRY, ) ) P lai nt iff-A ppe lla nt , ) AP P EA L F RO M THE D ISTRIC T ) COURT F OR THE E ASTERN v. ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) CITY OF P ONTIAC, ) ) Defendan t-Appellee. )

BEFORE: DA UG HTREY and SUTTO N, Circ uit Jud ges; and P OLS TER, District Judge. *

Dan Aaron P olster, D istrictJudge. Martice Be rry , an Afric an-A merica n male, appea ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on

to gra nt sum mary jud g me nt in favo r of the City of Pon tia c on B e rr y ’s c la ims that the City

disciplined and terminate d him from his positi on as a police office r based on his race

. F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m. I. Martice Be rry

beg an wor

king a s a police of

fice r for the City of Pontiac Police De partment i nM ay 2 0 0 2

. The ter

ms and condition s o f h i s em p l o y m en twe re go v ern edb y a co l l ec tive barg aining ag ree ment neg otiated betwe en the City and the Pontiac Police Offic ers Association (the “U nion”), and by the rules, r egulations and proce dures de tailed in the P ontiac P olice Department’s Ma nual of2

Conduct and Proce dures ( the “Police Ma nual”)

. Pursuant to the terms of the c ollective barg aining ag ree ment, befor e an of fice r wa s char g ed with a violation of the City ’s rules and reg ulations, the P olice Department’s Prof essional Standards Division (some times r efe rre d to a s internal a ffa irs) would conduc t an interna l investigation into t he office r’s a lleg ed conduc t. The off icer wo u l d b e n otified of the c harg es, af forde d Union repr esentation and entitled t o re s pond to the alleg ations. I f the investig ation resulted in sustained char g es ag ainst the offic er, it would be doc umented in the form of a Professional Conduct Report (“ PCR” ) i nd ic a tin g the ru le (s ) v iol a te d a nd the le ve l of

dis c ipl ine me te d o ut to th e off ice r. PCRs

rema ined ac tive in an office r’s employ ment file for

a per iod of three y ear s from the date of issuanc e. Citi zen complaints were treated in much the same manner . The City prac ticed a sy stem of prog ressive d i s cipline, althoug h neither the collective ba rg a ini nga g re e me nt n or

the Pol ic e Ma

nu a l so re qu ir e d. Di sc ipl ine ranged fro m c oa c hin g to counselingto suspension and termination. The a ppropriate discipline was base d on considerations of pr ior dis c ipl ina

ry his tor y a lon g wi th t

he se ve ri ty

of the c ha

rg e d co nd uc t – al tho ug h p art ic ula

rl y

sever e conduc t would rec eive more sever e dis cipline, reg ardle ss of t he off icer ’s stag e of pr og ressive discipline. I n late No ve mbe r 2 00 4, Juan ita Caratti ni a

nd An tawi an Bal l e a c h f

ile d c iti zen

c omp la int s

a g a ins t O ff

ic e r B e rr y a lle g ingthat he wa s u sin g his a uth or ity a s a po lic e of fi c e r t o h ara ss t

he m bo th on and off

duty . Mr. B all was the boy friend of Ms. Carat t i n i , a wo m an who had f ormerly had a relationship wit h Offic er B err y . Ms. Caratti n i had also date d Mr. B all, with whom she had two children, pr ior to dating Offic er B err y . At the time the citizen complaints were filed, Off icer Be rry had ac cumulated se ven disciplinary actions for

Polic e M a

n u a l v io la ti o n s w it h in th e p r e v ious eig hteenThe e vidence shows that Be rry ’s per sonnel file at that time conta ined the following 1 do c ume nte d d isc ipl ina

ry a c tio ns : J une 21, 2003. B err

y behave d in a discourteous ma nner a nd violated his responsibility as an off icer , resulting in a written re primand. September 13, 2003. B err y was a lleg ed to have eng ag ed in phy sical abuse or assa ult. The investig ation did not sustain thi s char g e, but uncove red tha t Be rry had beha ved in a dis c ourt e ou s ma

nn e r. He wa s c oa c he d to imp ro ve his c on du c t. September 20, 2003. B err y was found guilty

of abse nteeism and re ceive d documented co u n s el i n g. No ve mbe r 1 9, 20 03 . B e rr y vio late d th e De pa

rtme nt’ s r e c or ds po lic y

and its po lic y on his responsibilities as an off

icer , resulting in a 10-hour suspe nsion. F e b r u ar y 1 , 2 0 0 4

. B e r

r y’ s c a p a b i l i t y an d p e r f o r m an c e w e r e f

o u n d u n s a t i s f a c t o r y, resulting in a sec ond written re primand. Ap ri l 1, 20 04 . B e rr

y vio late d th e De pa

rtme nt’ s p oli c y

on c on du c t and

c ourt e sy and its policy on treatment of individuals in custody , resulting in a sec ond 10-hour suspension. Be rry does not dispute the ac cura cy of these inf

rac tions nor does he a

rgue that they

wer e base d on a ra cially

discriminatory

motive. 3 months: one coac hing, two doc umented counse lings, two written re primands and two 10- hour

su sp e ns ion s. 1 The De partment a ssigne d L ieutenant Char les Her ring , an Afric an Amer ican, to conduc t an int e rn a l af

fa ir s inve sti g a tio n into the c iti zen c omp la int s. On De c e mbe r 1 3, 20 04 , B e rr y ra ise d h is

vo ic e and a lle g e dly po int e d h is fin g e r int o L t. He rr ing ’s fa c e , in the pr e se nc e of oth e r o ff ic e rs , w hil e beinginterviewe d by L t. Her ring

. Ba sed on this insubordination, L t. Herr ing wrote B err y up for a violation of §§ 3.01 (Assaultive and Abusive L anguag e) and 1.01 (Responsibility of Member) of the Police Manual, for

which B err

y rec eived a

160-hour suspension. As his investigation progr essed, Lt. Herr ing une arthe d numerous violations of the Police Manual by

Offic er Ber

ry . Ms. Carattini informed L t. Her ring that, while she a

nd Offic er B err

y wer e dating , Offic er Ber

ry vowed to “g et” Mr. Ba ll. The e vidence corr oborate s this allegation. Office r Be rry ran at least four c hecks of Ba ll on the L aw Enf

orce ment I nformat i o n Ne t work (“ L EI N”) , unre late d to any

of fi c ia l bu sin e ss, duri ngB e rr y ’s re latio ns hip wi th C aratti ni. Th e e vid e nc e a lso4

shows that, contra

ry to the provision of the Police Manual permitting an office r t o arr ang e for bond only for f amily members or persons specific ally authorized by

the Police Chief, Of

fice r B err y had pa id M s. Caratti ni’ s bon d whe n she wa s ar re ste d in ano the r jur isd ic tio n. Ms. Cara tti ni i nf or me d Lt. Her ring that, while datingOffic er Be rry , he had told her that he w ould take ca re of a tra ffic violation she re ceive d in another jurisdiction, a nd then assure d her the matter had been r esolved a fter r unning L EI N che cks. The e vidence shows that, in fac t, he knew the matter had not be en re solved and, a fter they stopped dating , used the re sulting suspension of her lice nse as a premise to stop her a

nd issue he r a tr a ff ic c itatio n. He a lso us e d th is t ra ff ic sto p a s a

n opp or tun ity to o bta in h e r c ur

re nt a dd re ss for pur poses of a civil la

wsuit he had broug ht a g ainst her to re cover money he alleg edly

loaned he r during their re lationship. Accordingto Ms. Carattini, Office r B err y filed the civil suit ag ainst her only afte r he discove red that s h e wa s ag ain datingBa ll. Finally , the evidenc e shows that Of fice r Be rry ran at least four una

uthorized L EI

N che cks on Ms. Cara

ttini after their r elationship ended. The investig ation reve aled that, on November 21, 2004, Be rry

and his partne r, Off

icer J ames Wil kins, conducted a

traff ic stop of B all and ca lle d fo r b ackup a ssistance to do so. As they wer e execut in g th e s to p , p o li c e d is p a tc h s e n t o u t a c a ll f o r a s s is ta n c e w it h a f e lo n y r o b b e ry . The dispatcher advised that a pizz a restaur ant in the are a had just be en robbed and the m an age r was

c ha sin g the su sp e c ts on

fo ot. Th e of

fi c e rs a ssi sti ngB e rr

y and Wilk ins imm e diate ly

le ft the tr a ff ic stop and responde d to the robber y call. Be rry and Wil kins r emained with the traff ic stop for fifte en

more m in u te s w h il e d is p a tc hc o n f

ir me d B a ll ’ s dr iv in g s tatu s . T h e y c it e d B a ll f o r , amo n g o ther things, spee ding – e ven thoug h Be rry was c aug ht on his vehicle’ s audio/video rec order stating that he knew he was too far awa y to deter mine if Ba ll had been s peeding

. When the traff ic stop was over , Be rry and Wilkins responde d to the robber y dispatch. The Professional Standar ds Division faulted5

B e rr y and Wilk ins fo r f

a ili ngto r e sp on d to the ro bb e ry imm e diate ly . ( Th e y

c ou ld h ave g ive n B a ll

a wa rning .) I t also found that B err y ’s explanation of why

he chose not to r espond to the robbe ry incre dible, g iven that he ha d just asked bac kup for a routine traf

fic stop. The investig ation also reve aled that Office r Berr y violated t he P olice Manual by acc epting a $200 per

month discount in hi s rent to ac t as a “ courte sy office r” f

or his ap artment c omplex without submi tting a written reque st for off-duty employ ment to the C hief of Police, whose appr oval is require d prior to ac ceptingsuch employ ment. Ba sed on these f

indings, the Professional Standards Divis ion deter mined that Offic er B err

y had committed a total of thirteen Police Manual violations: one Responsibility of Member

violation,

one Neg lect of Duty

violation, seven instance s of Conduct Unbec oming a n Offic er, two Abuse of Po s it io n v io lati o n s , o n e B a il p r o v is io n v io lati o n a n d a v io lati o n o f th e T r

u th f u ln e s s p r o v ision for be ingg e ne ra lly

de c e pti ve and

un tr uth fu l du ri ngthe co ur se of

the inv e sti g a tio n. B a se d o n th e se inf ra c tio ns and

g ive n B e rr

y ’s pr ior dis c ipl ina

ry his to ry , th e De pa

rtme nt d e c ide d to te rm inate his employ ment eff ective Ma rch 21, 2005. Offic er Ber ry gri eved the termination of his employ ment and, on Oc tober 31, 2006, the arbitrator issued a de cision awa rding Be rry

his job with bac k pay . The a rbitrator f ound that there may be just cause to fire Of fice r B er ry , b ut the City ’s fa ilure to follow the proc edure s in the

c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini nga g re e me nt r e qu ir e d h is r e ins tate me nt. On Janu ary 17 , 2 00 6, B e rr

y su e d th e City , a lle g ingtha t hi s 1 60 -ho ur su sp e ns ion and his termination constituted rac e discrimination in violation of Title VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964, 4 2 U. S

. C

. § 2 0 00e et seq . , an d 4 2 U

. S. C. § 1 9 8 1

. O nF e b r u ar y 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , f

o ll o w in g th e c lo s e of discovery , briefingof the City ’s summary judgme nt motion and oral argument, t he district cour t6

g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g men t for the City . In d oin g so , th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d th a t B e rr

y fa ile d to establish a pr im a fa c ie c a se of ra c ia l dis c ri min a tio n in e ith e r his su sp e ns ion or te rm inatio n b e c a

us e he c ou ld n ot s ho w that he wa s tr e a te d d if fe re nt t ha n s imi larl y

sit uate d, no np ro te c te d o ff

ic e rs . II. We reviewa district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt de novo. Johnson v. Karnes , 398 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2005). Summary judgme nt is proper “if the pleading s, depositions, answers to interrog atories, a

nd admissions on file, t og ether with the aff

idavits, if any , show that there is no g enuine issue as to any

materia l fac t and that the moving party is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law. ” F e d. R. Ci v. P . 56( c ). Th e c ourt mus t r e vie w a ll the e vid e nc e and dr aw a ll r e a so na

ble infere nces in fa

vor of the nonmova

nt. Matsushito Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 4 75 U. S. 57 4, 58 7 ( 19 86 ); Johnson , 3 98 F .3 d at 87 3. Th e “m e re e xiste nc e of so me a lle g e d f

a c tua l di sp ute be tw e e n th e pa

rt ie s w ill no t de fe a t an oth e rw ise pr op e rl y su pp or te d mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt; the re quirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fac t.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) ( emphasis in orig inal). III . On appe al, Off

icer Be rry argues that his 160- hour suspension was rac e-ba sed bec ause two simil arly situated Cauca sia n o ff

i ce rs ac cused of

committing similar infrac tions rece ived a lesse r discipline. He a

rgues that h e wa s u n l aw fully terminated ba sed on his rac e bec ause his Cauc asian pa rt ne r, os te ns ibl y

g uil ty of the same inf

ra c tio ns , w a s n e ith e r t e rm inate d n or dis c ipl ine d f

or the same violations. F in a lly , he ar g ues that the City ’s ar ticulated re asons for te rminating his employ ment wer e pr e te xtua l. A common fra

mework g overns r ace discrimination claims under Title VI Iand 42 U.S.C.7

§ 1981. Noble v. Brinke r Int’l, Inc. , 391 F.3d 715, 720 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Be cause Offic er B err y bases his c la ims on

c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e , w e a pp ly the burd e n-shi ft ing fr ame wo rk art ic ulate d in McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.C t. 1 8 1 7 , 3 6 L

. E d .2d 668 (1973). See Taylor v. United Parce l Serv. , 2 3 7 Fe d

. Ap p x . 3 4 , 3 6 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g W re nn v . G ou ld , 808 F.2d 493, 500 ( 6th Cir. 1987)). To establish a pr im a fa c ie c a se of dis c ri min a tio n, Of

fi c e r B e rr y mus t show that (1) he is a member of a prote cted c lass; (2) he w as qualified f or the position from which he wa s f ir e d; ( 3) he wa s subj e c t to an a dv e rs e e mpl oy me nt a c tio n; a

nd (4 ) h e wa s tr e a te d d if

fe re ntl y than employ ees outside the pr otected c lass for same or si milar conduct. See McD onnell Douglas , 411 U.S. at 802. I f Off

icer Be rry can e stablish a pr im a fa c ie case of discrimination, the City may rebut the pr esumption of discrimination that arises by articulating a

leg itimate, nondiscriminatory

re a so n for i ts a c tio n; a

nd , if the City so art ic ulate s su c h a

re a so n, B e rr

y mus t sh owtha

t it is prete x tual. Id .; see also Manze r v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co. , 29 F.3d 1078, 1084 ( 6th Cir. 1994). A. Offic er Ber ry h as fa iled to establish a pr im a fa c ie claim that his 160-hour suspension wa s unlawf u ll y b a s e d o nh is r a c e b e c a

u s e h e c an n o t s h o w th a t a n y s im il ar ly s it u a te d , n o np r o te c te d employ ees e ng ag ed in the same conduct as he did and wer e tre ated be tter. Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp. , 96 4 F .2 d 5 57 , 5 82 -8 3 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 2) ; Majewski v. Automatic D ata Processing , 274 F.3d 1106, 1116 (6th Cir. 2001). For

Be rry to compare his discipline to that of nonminority employ ees, he must show that his compara

bles are simil arly situated to him in all relevant re spects. Ercegov ich v. Goody ear Tire & Rubber Co. , 1 54 F .3 d 3 44 , 3 52 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) . G e ne ra lly , in case s all e g ingdis pa rate dis c ipl ina ry a c tio n, th e pla int if

f m us t sh owthat th e a lle g e d c omp ara ble s d e a lt w iththe same8

supervis o r, we re subject to the same sta ndards a nd eng ag ed in the same conduct “ without such differ entiating or m itigating circ umstances that would distinguish their conduct or the e mploy er’ s treatment of t hem for it.” Id. (q u o t i n g Mi tc he ll , 964 F.3d at 583)). The plaintiff ne ed not, howeve r, de mon str a te “ an e xac t c or re latio n” wi th t

he e mpl oy e e a lle g e d to have received mo re f avo ra ble treatment in order f

or the two to be c onsidered similarly situated. Id . (citin g Piercev. Commonwealth Lif

e Ins. Co. , 40 F.3d 796, 802 ( 6th Cir. 1994)). The two nonprote cted of

fice rs to whom Be rry has compar ed himself are Offic er Miller D ao and Of fice r Steven Wit tebort. Wit h respe ct to O ffice r Dao, Be rry argues that he a lso was ac cused of conduct unbecoming an office r and untruthfulness; y et, the City only assessed Dao a 2 0 -hour suspension without pay . The e vidence shows that, on Marc h 19, 2005 (af ter Ber ry was ter minated), Dao violated Police Ma

nual §§ 1.02 (Responsibility of a Me mber), 4.01 ( Depa rtmental Recor ds), 17 .0 1 ( Con du c t U nb e c omi ngan O ff ic e r) and 17 .0 3 ( Tr

uth fu lne ss) wh e n h e inc or re c tly fi lle d o ut a police re port, resulting in a 20-hour suspension. At the t ime of t hese infrac tions, the Depa rtment had only disciplined Dao four

times, resulting in two doc umented counse lings, one written rep rimand and one 10- hour suspension. When the C ity issued Be rry the 160-hour suspe nsion, he had a lrea dy violated the M an u al on s even dif fer ent occ asions, resulting in one coa ching , two documented counseling s, two written repr imands and two 10-hour suspensions. T hus, just based on the numbers and the Depa

rtment’s prac tice of prog ressive discipline, Offic er Be rry cannot show t h at Da o was simil arly situated. Nor can Offic er Be rry show that Dao eng ag ed in conduc t of the same na ture or

se ve ri ty wh e n h e re c e ive d a

le sse r sus pe ns ion

. Da o re c e ive d his 2 0- ho ur su sp e ns ion

fo r i nc or re c tly fi l l i n g o u t a police r eport while B err y rec eived his 160-hour

suspension for insubordination to a superior office r i n the presence of ot her office rs whil e the superior of fice r wa s conductingan interna l9

aff airs investig ation into his allege d hara ssment of citizens. Finally , Offic er B err y cannot show that he and D ao we re similarly situated bec ause, althoug h Police Chief Gac kstetter ultimately approve d their discipline, such approval was based upon the recommendations of two differ ent supervising off i ce rs (Lt. Herr ing r ecommende d Offic er B err y ’s suspension, and Sg t. Kathleen Mic kens

rec omme n d ed Of

fi ce r Da o’s suspension). See E rcegov ich , 1 5 4 F. 3 d

at 3 5 2 (c i t i n g Mi tc he ll , 964 F .2 d at 583 ); cf. Shager v . Upjohn Co. , 913 F.2d 398, 406 ( 7th Cir. 1990) (supervisor pr oviding information to ultimate decision-make r can eff ectively influence and contr ol that person’s de cision); but see Mc

Mi lla n v . Ca str o , 405 F.3d 405, 414 (6th Cir. 2005) (the re quirement that a plaintiff and his compara

ble must have de alt with the same super visor to be simila rly

situated does not automatically

apply in ever y case ). Offic er Be rry also cannot show that Offic er Wittebort is simi larly situated. In J anuar

y 2006, Wit tebort violated Po l i ce D epar tment Manual §§ 1.02 (Responsibility of a Me mber), 3.03 (Assaultive a

nd Abusive L anguag e) and 8.01 (Conduct and Courte sy) whe n he swore at Serg eant J eff ery Smit h and questioned the rea soning be hind Smi th’s order , r e s u lt in g in a n 80-hour suspension. I n marke d contra st to Ber

ry , Wit tebort had only one documented counse ling, one written re primand and no suspensions on his rec ord at the time of this disciplinary action – and the d i s ci pline was repor ted by a diffe rent super

visor and appr oved by

a diffe rent Police Chief ( Valar d Gross). Withre sp e c t to the te rm ination, B e rr y c on te nd s th a t he wa s tr e a te d le ss f avo ra bly tha n h is Cauca sian partne r, Officer Wil kins, whom, he arg ues, enga g ed in the s ame conduct. W hile Offic er Be rry is c orre ct that Wil kins violated some of the same Manual provisions as B err y (e.g ., delay ed response to a robber

y in prog ress a

nd obtaining a

discount in rent for be ing a courte sy office r at the apar tment complex wit hout prior appr oval), those instanc es are far less in number than the nume rousWe also note that, prior to Nove mber 2004, Police Chief G ackste tter, a Cauc asian, ha d 2 concur red in finding s that at least two citizen complaints ag ainst Offic er B err y wer e unfounde d. An d Lt. H e rr ing , w ho wa s a lso re sp on sib le fo r i nv e sti g a tin g pr ior c iti zen c omp la int s a g a ins t Offic er B err

y , deter mined that they

wer e unfounde d and re commended no disc iplinary action. B e rr y ’s argume nt t

hat he did no t mi su se the L EI

N s y ste m be c a

us e the Oa

kla nd County 3 Prosecutor de cided not to cr iminally prosec ute him for that off ense doe s not absolve him of violating the Pontiac Police D epar tment’s L EI

N policy . Be rry

had no leg itimate law enf orce ment ob je c tiv e , a nd he a c c e sse d th e sy ste m im pr op e rl y to f ur the r h is p e rs on a l in te re sts and to h ara ss tw o c iti zen s. 10 infrac tions that led to Ber ry ’s termination. More over, Be rry ’s infrac tions a re diff ere nt in chara cter from Wilkins ’ alleg ed infra ctions. There is no evidence that Wil kins delay ed his response to the

ro bb e ry to h ara ss B all , bu t beca us e he wa s h e lpi nghis pa rt ne r e xec ute wh a t he tho ug ht w a s a leg itimate traff

ic stop. I ndeed, O ffice r B err y admitted at depo s i t i o n t h at he wa s unawa re of any protec ted or nonprote cted of fice r who was char g ed with the num ber and char acte r of infractions he had ama ssed who wa s not terminated. 2 Rather, the e vidence shows that Offic er Ber ry wa s t erminated as the re sult of an interna l aff airs investig ation that uncover ed numer ous, eg reg ious instances of Be rry ’s abuse of powe r. He

ran nume rous L EI

N chec ks on Ba ll unr elated to a ny officia l busine ss, while he wa s dating Carattini – then ra n numerous unauthor ized L E I N ch ec k s on Carattini afte r their r elationship ended. He 3 abused his author ity

by conductingtraff

ic stops of Ba ll a

nd Carattini for pe rsonal motives; and he jeopar dized the safety of office rs and c itiz ens while c onducting one of those stops. He was de ceitful d u ri n g t h e c o u rs e o f t h e i n t ern al af fa i rs i n v es t i gat i o n , an d wa s d o wn ri gh ts u rl y t o wa rdL t

. He rr i n g. B e c a us e Of fi c e r B e rr y ha s f a ile d to ide nti fy

a no np ro te c te d of

fi c e r wh o e ng a g e d in t

he same

c on du c t but w a s n ot t e rm inate d, we ne e d n ot a dd re ss h is a

rgum ent that th e re a so ns fo r h is termination wer e only

a pre text for intentional ra cial discrimination. Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM

.