Opinion ID: 2072173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Perry's Experience at Stitzer

Text: Treat customers equally and politely. That was Gordon Heinriech's advice to Anthony Perry in August 1987 when he selected him to become one of Stitzer Buick's new trainees. Perry soon learned, however, that what was preached on Stitzer's showroom floor was not practiced by its managers. While eight of Stitzer's ten trainees quit before the end of the training period, Perry completed the program and soon was establishing himself as one of Stitzer's top salesmen. Nonetheless, Perry, an African-American, began to suspect that his white supervisors harbored animosity towards him. By November, Perry alleges, that animosity had escalated to little short of a racially motivated campaign to drive him from the dealership. On November 11, Stitzer general manager Dick Loury made Perry and another black co-worker privy to his belief that all you black people always steal. Perry complained about Loury's slur to his immediate supervisor and to sales manager Tony Houk but to no avail. Houk just laughed it off, he didn't care. Later that day and in front of Perry, leasing manager Carl Weidner described an African-American who owed him money as a nigger. Doubt about Weidner's motivation for telling this story in Perry's presence was removed the following day when Weidner speculated at a sales meeting that Perry might leave the dealership since he had called [Perry] a nigger the day before. Perry again complained to his managers, but once again they ignored his complaints. That Saturday, Perry had a confrontation with sales manager Houk. Perry needed Houk's approval in order to complete a sale. Houk routinely treated Perry with contempt during these encounters and often referred to him as dummy and stupid. On this particular Saturday, Houk turned violent, apparently displeased with Perry's failure to make a sale to an elderly black couple. He called Perry a black son of a bitch and other vulgar names and then shoved him into his office where he further berated him and threatened him with discharge. Finally, Houk told Perry to get [his] ass out there and try to sell another car. Perry wiped Houk's spit off his face and said yes sir. He left the showroom in tears while his co-workers stood at the sales desk laughing and joking about the incident. Perry's co-workers bet he would not return to Stitzer after that Saturday but Perry proved them wrong. Embarrassed and humiliated, he reported for work on Monday. When Houk arrived he glared at Perry and said, Damn, he's still here. Amidst continuing harassment, Perry remained on the lot pitching Stitzer cars until the close of business. The following morning Perry was one of the first salesmen on the job. When Houk encountered Perry he again declared, he's still here. Several minutes later Houk called Perry into his office and fired him. When Perry requested an explanation, Houk responded, I no longer need your service. [I]s it because I was late or I'm not producing ...? Perry persisted. No, we just no longer needed your services, Houk answered. Several days later Houk placed advertisements in an Indianapolis newspaper announcing Stitzer's need for sales people. In response to his termination Perry brought suit against Stitzer Buick GMC, Inc., and its president David Stitzer; secretary-treasurer Byron Stitzer; sales manager Tony Houk; general manager Dick Loury; and leasing manager Carl Weidner, all in their official capacities (hereinafter Stitzer). [1] Perry's complaint is in five counts and it alleges causes of action for assault, slander, and assault and battery. Stitzer answered by way of a general denial and pled various affirmative defenses. Perry also sued in U.S. District Court alleging causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1988) (amended 1991) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1981(a)(1992). Perry's federal causes of action were remanded to state court where summary judgment was granted in favor of Stitzer on all claims against it. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly disposed of Perry's § 1981 claim and his request for retroactive application of the 1991 Civil Rights Act [2] but erred in disallowing his common law tort claims. Perry v. Stitzer Buick, GMC (1992), Ind. App., 604 N.E.2d 613. Both parties seek transfer, which we grant. We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals on Perry's civil rights claims, Ind. Appellate Rule 11(B)(3), and turn to his Indiana common law claims.