Opinion ID: 764161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disparate Treatment Liability

Text: 14 The defendants first argue that the district court erred in determining that they unlawfully subjected the plaintiffs to disparate treatment because of their race. This court reviews a district court's finding of facts made after a bench trial for clear error and reviews a district court's conclusions of law de novo. See Davies v. Centennial Life Ins. Co., 128 F.3d 934, 938 (6th Cir.1997). When reviewing for clear error, we must affirm the trial court unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. See EEOC v. Atlas Paper Box Co., 868 F.2d 1487, 1493 (6th Cir.1989) (citation and quotation omitted). 15 A plaintiff may create a presumption of discrimination pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting principle. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 803, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case and creating a presumption of discrimination by demonstrating: (1) membership in the protected class; (2) that he or she suffered from an adverse action; (3) that he or she was qualified for the position; and (4) that he or she was treated differently from similarly situated members of the unprotected class. See Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582-83 (6th Cir.1992) (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 803); see also Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir.1996). Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, a defendant may offer any legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action, which the plaintiff may then rebut with evidence of pretext; however, the burden of proof at all times remains with the plaintiff. Hartsel, 87 F.3d at 800. (citing St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993)). 16 In this case, the district court found that pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiffs demonstrated that the defendants subjected them to racially based disparate treatment. First, the district court determined that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case by showing that: (1) they are black; (2) they were available for referral by the union for job opportunities at Perry; (3) Local 496 did not refer plaintiffs for employment opportunities at Perry; and (4) white non-union members were referred for work and made members of Local 496, during the same time plaintiffs had applied and been refused. 17 We agree. Floyd Conrad selectively enforced, to the detriment of black applicants, the Uniform Constitution's working-in-the-calling requirement. Conrad testified that white union members asked him a thousand times or more to admit unemployed relatives to Local 496, and that he obliged them; he also testified that he had admitted into the union his own unemployed relatives, including his father. 3 During the same time period, when Donald Robinson advised several unemployed African Americans to seek membership in Local 496, Conrad refused them all. 4 Moreover, at trial, Conrad admitted that whenever a contractor specifically requested that Local 496 refer a black person for employment, Conrad would call Local 860 of Cleveland, which had a higher percentage of African-American members than Local 496, to suggest that the Cleveland union refer one of its members. Conrad thereby avoided referring for employment, and subsequently admitting into Local 496, any African-American applicants. 18 Furthermore, African Americans suffered disparate treatment with regard to Local 496's Perry referral policy itself; after the union changed its Perry referral policy in 1987, it failed to make this change known to black applicants, effectively ensuring that they would not be referred. Prior to 1987, Local 496 did not have a written referral policy for Perry; however, it admits that it only referred members to Perry, in contravention of the project labor agreement. Local 496's practice was to allow members and, occasionally, non-members to sign a notebook located in the union indicating that they wished to be referred. Conrad would then compile a master list from the notebook containing the names of members only. This practice led to National Labor Relations Board charges against Local 496 and eventually to the written 1987 referral policy. Pursuant to the new policy, Local 496 maintained a single list of both members and non-members wishing to be referred to Perry. Local 496 made referrals from this list, in order. However, persons on the list were required to inform Local 496 monthly that they remained unemployed and interested in Perry. Otherwise, their names were removed from the referral list. Although this policy was facially neutral, Conrad did not inform class members of the new procedure. Members, however, were informed via posters hung in locations throughout the union hall to which only members had access. Consequently, class members' names were not retained on the union's referral list, and Local 496 never referred any for employment under this new policy. 19 For example, on or about January 22, 1990, plaintiffs Art Tomblin and Ronald Colvin appeared at Local 496's hiring hall seeking referral for employment. Pursuant to the October 1987 referral policy, the union representative asked Colvin and Tomblin to sign their names on the out-of-work list. They were 92nd and 93rd on the list at the time they signed up. On February 1, 1990, the union secretary prepared a new out-of-work list and deleted the names of the individuals on the January list who had received referrals for employment or had failed to notify Local 496 of their continued interest in a referral within the last thirty days. As a result of these deletions, Colvin and Tomblin advanced to positions 65 and 66 on the list. However, the union secretary responsible for preparation of the March 1990 out-of-work list dropped Colvin and Tomblin from the roster because they had failed to notify Local 496 of their continuing interest in referral for employment. According to the defendants, had Colvin and Tomblin indicated their continued interest, they would have remained on the roster and been referred for work in May of 1992. Moreover, the defendants argue that they informed plaintiffs' counsel of the new referral policy, and, thus, by association informed the plaintiffs. 20 Defendants suggest that Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962), supports their proposition that the knowledge of a litigant's counsel is imputed to the litigant. However, there are exceptions to this rule when, as here, equity requires such. See Partlow v. Jewish Orphans' Home of Southern Cal., 645 F.2d 757, 758-62 (9th Cir.1981). Quite frankly, we find it peculiar that although Local 496 supposedly implemented the new referral policy for the purpose of curing the previous policy's defects, the defendants never directly apprised African Americans seeking employment of the new referral system. Common sense dictates that if the defendants really intended to make employment opportunities available to all, they would have, as Magistrate Judge Hemann stated, implemented this desire by making the new referral rules readily available and/or made at least one telephone call to prospective workers. This is particularly true given Conrad's admission that he failed to refer a single non-member minority to work at Perry. In this case, the defendants' notice to plaintiffs' counsel of the facially neutral referral system does not absolve defendants of their continued discriminatory application of that system. Thus, we decline to extend the holding of Link to this case. 21 Incidentally, the record contains still more evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs made out a prima facie case. Conrad, in fact, blatantly displayed his personal hostility toward African Americans on several occasions. Don Robinson and Rudy Bracale, another member of Local 496, both testified that Conrad referred to Robinson by a racial epithet on at least two occasions. See Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 354 (6th Cir.1998) (recognizing that discriminatory remarks of decisionmakers are relevant to show motivations for their actions); Talley v. Bravo Pitino Restaurant, Ltd., 61 F.3d 1241, 1248 (6th Cir.1995) (recognizing that employer's repeated use of racial epithets constituted direct evidence of racial discrimination). Furthermore, after Robinson began questioning Local 496's discriminatory practices, Conrad retaliated by removing Robinson from his position as union steward because he was bringing up minority stuff that was not his business. Taken as a whole, we view the above as undeniable evidence of racial animus and disparate treatment and accordingly affirm the district court's conclusion that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case. 22 Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant may respond by articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. Hartsel, 87 F.3d at 799. In this case, the defendants claim that the business purpose for their working-in-the-calling policy was to protect unemployed union members from an influx of unemployed non-members attempting to join the union. The district court found this reason to be pretext for discrimination, and the record supports the district court's conclusion. Quite simply, the defendants selectively enforced the working-in-the-calling requirement. As we have previously discussed, Conrad testified that he often admitted unemployed relatives of white union members. The fact that the defendants offered union membership to unemployed white non-members while they refused membership to African-Americans, even those who had been offered employment, plainly suggests that Conrad was less concerned with applicants' employment status than he was with their race. This evidence negates the defendants' proffered reason for refusing African-American applicants union membership, and the plaintiffs have thus met their burden of establishing pretext. See Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co., 29 F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir.1994) (recognizing that showing that the proffered reason did not actually motivate the defendant is sufficient to establish pretext). 23 The district court's conclusion with regard to disparate treatment was not clearly erroneous. To the contrary, we are hard-pressed to imagine a race-discrimination case with more explicit evidence of disparate treatment. We accordingly affirm the district court's conclusion that the defendants engaged in racially based disparate treatment in violation of Title VII.