Opinion ID: 74381
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discipline Claims

Text: Major A.M. Alexander and Sergeant James NeSmith alleged that they were disciplined more severely than were black officers who committed similar offenses because of their race. To establish discrimination in discipline, just like showing discrimination in hiring, a plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case demonstrating: 1) that he belongs to a protected class under Title VII; 2) that he was qualified for the job; and 3) that a similarly situated employee engaged in the same or similar misconduct but did not receive similar discipline. See Lathem v. Dep't of Children and Youth Servs., 172 F.3d 786, 792 (11th Cir.1999); Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th Cir.1997). Once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, the burden of going forward shifts to the employer who must provide a specific legitimate non-discriminatory reason for disciplining the employees differently. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254-55, 101 S.Ct. 1089; Lathem, 172 F.3d at 793. Finally, the ultimate burden of persuasion rests with the plaintiff who must show that the proffered legitimate reasons for the different disciplinary actions were pretextual thereby permitting, but not compelling, the trier of fact to conclude that the employment action at issue was the product of illegal discrimination. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089; Lathem, 172 F.3d at 793; Combs 106 F.3d at 1529-38.
Major Alexander claims that he was disciplined more severely than were similarly situated black officers who committed similar offenses on account of his race. Major Alexander was both suspended for fifteen days and transferred from his position in the Service Division after allowing a subordinate to drive several Department cars home in violation of Sheriff Barrett's instructions. While Sheriff Barrett contended that the suspension and transfer of Alexander to Grady Hospital were appropriate disciplinary responses to 35 Major Alexander's transgression, Major Alexander presented evidence suggesting he was demonstrably treated more harshly than a black officer who committed exactly the same offense. Alexander claimed that Major Louwinski, a black officer, also allowed a subordinate law enforcement officer, Teresa Simon, to drive a car home in violation of departmental policy but, unlike Alexander, he was not disciplined. While both Louwinski and Sheriff Barrett testified that Louwinski had received permission from the Sheriff before authorizing Simon to drive the car home, Alexander argued that this assertion was not worthy of belief. Neither Louwinski nor Sheriff Barrett could produce a copy of the memorandum Louwinski claimed that he wrote to Sheriff Barrett seeking permission to allow Simon to take home a Department vehicle. And, when pressed on cross-examination, Louwinski conceded that he could not even remember what the memorandum supposedly said. In addition, another officer, Barron Cole, testified that soon after Major Alexander left the Service Division and Louwinski took over, Louwinski allowed three more law enforcement officers to drive Department cars home, without the imposition of any sanctions. Neither Major Louwinski nor Sheriff Barrett submitted any evidence suggesting that Sheriff Barrett authorized Louwinski to allow any of those officers to take home Department cars, and none of their names appeared on a list of officers permitted to take home Department vehicles submitted into evidence by the Defendants. Based on all the evidence presented, we are satisfied the jury had sufficient basis to find that Alexander was treated more harshly than Louwinski because of his race. Accordingly, we uphold the jury's compensatory damages award against Sheriff Barrett. We must consider separately the appropriateness of the jury's award of punitive damages. Last term in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n., 527 U.S. 526, 119 S.Ct. 2118, 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999), the Supreme Court determined the circumstances under which a court can award punitive damages under Title VII.26 The Supreme Court rejected the holding of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that eligibility for punitive damages required a showing of egregious misconduct by the employer. Kolstad, 119 S.Ct. at 2124. The Court emphasized that what was necessary for an award of punitive damages was not a showing of 26 Title VII's punitive damages provision was based on §§ 1983 and 1981 standards. See, e.g., Kolstad, 119 S.Ct. at 2124; Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 188 F.3d 278 (5th Cir.1999) 36 egregious or outrageous discrimination but only a showing that the employer acted with the appropriate state of mind. Id. at 2124. The appropriate state of mind meant acting with malice or with reckless indifference to [the plaintiff's] federally protected rights, § 1981a(b)(1), which, the Court explained, required a showing of either an evil intention to deprive a plaintiff of his federally protected rights or a conscious indifference to these rights. Id. at 2124-25.27 At a minimum, the Court explained, in order to be liable in punitive damages, an employer must ... discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law. Id. at 2125. The Supreme Court emphasized that this standard of liability is higher than that for establishing a right to compensatory damages. Id. at 2124. Liability for punitive damages requires not merely a showing of intentional discrimination but a showing that the employer acted with knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law. Id. at 2124. The Court explained that under this standard: [t]here will be circumstances where intentional discrimination does not give rise to punitive damages.... In some instances, the employer may simply be unaware of the relevant federal prohibition. There will be cases, moreover, in which the employer discriminates with the distinct belief that its discrimination is lawful. The underlying theory of discrimination may be novel or otherwise poorly recognized, or an employer may reasonably believe that its discrimination satisfies a bona fide occupational qualification defense or other statutory exception to liability. Id at 2125. The instant case, however, does not fall into this category of cases in which intentional discrimination was shown but the appropriate state of mind for punitive damages was not. The theory of discrimination at issue in this case, the illegality of race-based employment decisions, is neither novel nor poorly recognized. The question of race as a bona fide occupational qualification was never suggested. Most importantly, however, Sheriff Barrett did not operate under any misapprehension about the legality of treating black and white law enforcement officers differently. Indeed, Sheriff Barrett unambiguously testified that 27 The Supreme Court in Kolstad relied primarily on its earlier case of Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983), which described the standard for awarding punitive damages in § 1983 cases, to illuminate the meaning of the terms malice and reckless indifference as used in the parallel standard for awarding punitive damages under Title VII. Smith, like Kolstad, emphasized that malice or an intent to injure was not required for an award of punitive damages, but only reckless indifference which, the Court suggested, entailed a criminal indifference to civil obligations or a subjective consciousness of risk of injury. Id. at 37 n. 6, 41, 51, 103 S.Ct. 1625. 37 she knew it was illegal to treat employees differently on account of race.28 Given the jury's amply supported finding that Sheriff Barrett intentionally discriminated against Alexander on account of his race, in concert with Sheriff Barrett's self-professed understanding that such treatment deprives an employee of his federal rights, a reasonable jury could conclude that Sheriff Barrett indeed acted in the face of a perceived risk that [her] actions [would] violate federal law. Id. at 2125. See also Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 187 F.3d 1241, 1246 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that because store manager testified he was familiar with the requirements of the ADA a reasonable jury could have concluded that the employer intentionally discriminated against plaintiff in the face of a perceived risk that its action would violate federal law and upholding award of punitive damages). Accordingly, we uphold the jury's punitive damages award against Sheriff Barrett.
28 The relevant portion of the transcript is as follows: Q: Well, it wouldn't be—would you agree that it would be permissible to terminate people because of their race? A: Would I agree—I'm sorry. Q: Does any reason include race? A: It wouldn't for me. ... Q: So when you say that they are terminable at will or could be fired for any reason, you are not asserting that it would be okay to fire someone because of their race? A: I would never assert that, no. ... Q: ... Although no one has a right to a classified job, people do have a right to be considered for those jobs independent of their race. Would you agree? A: Certainly. R3-16-216-217. 38 Sergeant James NeSmith alleged that on two occasions he too was disciplined more severely than were similarly situated black employees. First, Sergeant NeSmith points to his receipt of a letter of reprimand from Chief Deputy Gregory P. Henderson for his role in releasing two female inmates from the Jail who were wanted by the Waycross, Georgia police. Sergeant NeSmith was working as the Relief Sergeant at the Booking Intake Area at the Jail when the two women, who were supposedly wanted by the Waycross Police Department, were brought in. After noticing discrepancies between the physical characteristics of the two women and the descriptions of the individuals wanted by the Waycross Police and after discussing the situation with a detective in the Waycross Police Department and with Sergeant David Mosley, a black man who was in charge of the Booking Intake Area at the Jail, Sergeant NeSmith released the two women. Soon thereafter, Sergeant NeSmith learned that the women he had released were in fact the women who were wanted by the law enforcement authorities in Waycross. Indeed, Sergeant Mosley testified that he bore the greater responsibility for the decision to release the two women. Sergeant Mosley, however, received no reprimand for his role in the release. Second, Sergeant NeSmith points to the discipline he received—being assigned to the guard shack—after a black prisoner was assaulted in his cell while NeSmith was on duty in the control tower. Sergeant NeSmith was working in a control tower in the Booking Intake Area when he observed Sergeant LeBarron Woodard and Officer Marvin Swint, both black officers, physically remove a combative prisoner from a police car. The officers put the prisoner in a padded cell which Sergeant NeSmith could not see from the control tower. Shortly thereafter, the prisoner was abused in his cell. While the charges of abuse were being investigated, NeSmith was assigned to the guard shack, a small building that controls the outer gate of the Jail, and a position not generally filled by a sergeant. The two black officers, Sergeant Woodard and Officer Swint, were not reassigned during the investigation. Defendants did not present any non-discriminatory reason for why NeSmith received different treatment in both the booking and police brutality incidents than did the other officers who were more closely 39 involved, except to say simply that NeSmith's conduct merited the actions taken by the Department. Based on the evidence presented showing that NeSmith received punishment when black officers involved in the same incidents did not, we are satisfied that the jury had a reasonable basis to find that Sergeant NeSmith was twice disciplined on account of his race.