Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/440/350/477804/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:12:27
Document Index: 319913762

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2000', '§ 1981', '§ 621', '§ 1981', '§ 101', '§ 1981', '§ 1981']

Saeid B. Amini, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Oberlin College, Defendant-appellee, 440 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2006) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 2006 › Saeid B. Amini, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Oberlin College, Defendant-appellee
Saeid B. Amini, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Oberlin College, Defendant-appellee, 440 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2006)
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 440 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2006)
Decided and Filed: March 10, 2006
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ARGUED: Saeid B. Amini, Law Office of Saeid B. Amini, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Michael J. Frantz, Frantz Ward, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Saeid B. Amini, Law Office of Saeid B. Amini, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Michael J. Frantz, Michael N. Chesney, Frantz Ward, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.
On January 31, 2000, the plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against Oberlin College alleging racial, national origin, and religious discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Count 1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count 2), and age discrimination in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Count 3). The district court granted Oberlin's motion to dismiss all of the claims on April 14, 2000. On the first appeal, this court reversed in part and remanded the race discrimination claim under section 1981 for further proceedings. The complaint referenced an attached EEOC charge that alleged "I believe I was discriminated against because of my race, Middle Eastern, national origin, Iranian, and religion, Muslim, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and my age, 45, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act." This court concluded that the reference was sufficient to survive a Rule 12 motion. Amini v. Oberlin College, 259 F.3d 493, 503 (6th Cir. 2001).
This court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo and applies the same standard as the district court. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. J & L Lumber Co., Inc., 373 F.3d 807, 812 (6th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A moving party can meet its burden under Rule 56(c) by "`showing' — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); see Estate of Mauro By and Through Mauro v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 137 F.3d 398, 401 (6th Cir. 1998). Once the moving party has made that showing, the nonmoving party cannot rest on his pleadings but must identify specific facts that can be established by admissible evidence, which demonstrate a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548; Hall v. Tollett, 128 F.3d 418, 421-22 (6th Cir. 1997).
The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. However, the party opposing the summary judgment motion must "do more than simply show that there is some `metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.'" Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796, 800 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986)). Thus, " [t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. 2505.
The statute prohibits intentional race discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts involving both public and private actors. Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d 862, 867-68 (6th Cir. 2001). The statute's protection extends to "the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b). Oberlin, as an academic institution, is "subject" to the requirements of the statute. St. Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609, 107 S. Ct. 2022, 95 L. Ed. 2d 582 (1987).
In order to establish a claim for racial discrimination under section 1981, a plaintiff must plead and prove that (1) he belongs to an identifiable class of persons who are subject to discrimination based on their race; (2) the defendant intended to discriminate against him on the basis of race; and (3) the defendant's discriminatory conduct abridged a right enumerated in section 1981(a). See Christian, 252 F.3d at 871-72. As the district court observed, the "intent" element of the claim can be established either by direct evidence or inferentially. Blalock v. Metals Trades, Inc., 775 F.2d 703, 707 (6th Cir. 1985) (explaining that the direct and circumstantial means of proof are two "different evidentiary paths by which to resolve the ultimate issue of defendant's discriminatory intent"). When a claimant seeks to prove intentional discrimination inferentially in a section 1981 case, federal courts follow the burden-shifting framework that the Supreme Court has prescribed for analogous civil rights cases described in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973), and Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981). See Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 186, 109 S. Ct. 2363, 105 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1989), overruled on other grounds by Pub. L. 102-166, § 101 (noting that "this scheme of proof, structured as a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination ... should apply to claims of racial discrimination under § 1981") (internal quotes and citation omitted); Noble v. Brinker Int'l, Inc., 391 F.3d 715, 720 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that " [t]he elements of [a] prima facie case as well as the allocations of the burden of proof are the same for employment claims stemming from Title VII and § 1981") (quoting Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 573 n. 5 (6th Cir. 2000)).
The district court dispatched this argument in short order, with good reason. The plaintiff has misconstrued the nature of direct evidence. As this court has explained many times, " [d]irect evidence is that evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer's actions." Kocak v. Cmty. Health Partners of Ohio, Inc., 400 F.3d 466, 470 (6th Cir. 2005). It does not require the fact finder to draw any inferences to reach that conclusion. See Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2000). For example, proof of "a facially discriminatory employment policy or a corporate decision maker's express statement of a desire to [avoid hiring] employees in the protected group is direct evidence of discriminatory intent." Ibid.; see also Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 865 (6th Cir. 2003). Evidence of discrimination is not considered direct evidence unless a racial motivation is explicitly expressed.
We agree with the district court's conclusion that the evidence cited by the plaintiff does not amount to direct evidence of discrimination. The racial composition of the Oberlin faculty does not lead ineluctably to the conclusion that the college considered race when eliminating the plaintiff from consideration for the position for which he applied. Such statistical evidence at most may constitute circumstantial evidence of discrimination. See Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1466 (6th Cir. 1990). However, " [f]or statistics to be valid and helpful in a discrimination case, both the methodology and the explanatory power of the statistical analysis must be sufficient to permit an inference of discrimination." Rocha v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 850 F.2d 1095, 1101 (6th Cir. 1988) (internal quotes and citation omitted). The plaintiff's evidence constituted at most an anecdotal report; both parties provided some evidence of Oberlin's hiring practices and the college stated that it had hired faculty members with Iranian, Algerian, Sri Lankan, and Asian lineage. The plaintiff did not develop this evidence into useful direct or inferential proof of the defendant's intent.
The district court also considered whether the plaintiff offered sufficient circumstantial proof of the defendant's discriminatory intent by applying the familiar burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Under that framework, the plaintiff must present a prima facie case, at which point the defendant must come forward with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. If the defendant can respond with such a reason for the adverse employment action, the plaintiff has the burden of offering evidence that the defendant's justification is a pretext that masks its true discriminatory intent. See Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 866 (6th Cir. 2003). Throughout the analysis, " [t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff." Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981).
The district court carefully considered each of these claims and concluded that they do not amount to pretext masking discriminatory animus. The plaintiff contends that the district court's reasoning constituted impermissible fact finding at the summary judgment stage, but we do not agree. Rather, we conclude that the plaintiff's evidence trenches not at all upon the defendant's conclusion that Dr. Andrews was preferred as a candidate for nondiscriminatory reasons. The plaintiff has great difficulty accepting the fact that the hiring committee found a younger, less experienced, less published person more likely to succeed in the position than himself, and concludes that some other reason must support the decision than merit alone. The evidence does show that Dr. Andrews had personal and family connections to the college, but hiring decisions based on those reasons are not illegal. See Goostree v. State of Tennessee, 796 F.2d 854, 862 (6th Cir. 1986) (stressing "the difference between a hiring process that proceeds based on legally impermissible distinctions between candidates and a `patronage system that relies on family, friends, and political allies'"). Dr. Henle was Andrews' academic advisor during Andrews' undergraduate studies at Oberlin, so there is nothing sinister in Andrews turning to Henle for a letter of recommendation. The plaintiff misconstrues the evidence when he argues that Henle invited Andrews to apply for the job; the testimony indicates that Dr. Andrews contacted Dr. Henle about the position. See J.A. at 110-11. There is no suggestion in the record that Oberlin's decision to weed out the plaintiff's application in the initial stage of the search was based at all on his "race." The district court properly determined that Dr. Amini had a blemished background and, even if more qualified, he had not proven his qualifications with a complete application.