Opinion ID: 2975396
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: CO David Carleton

Text: CO David Carleton, a white correction officer, is the most similarly situated of the proffered comparables. In December 2001, he was found to have twice struck a handcuffed inmate, once in the stomach and once in the face. Use of Force Committee Report, JA 251-53. The committee recognized that inmate Kadras had refused to comply with two orders to exit the area before Carleton took it upon himself to escort Kadras to the segregation unit. Id. Although Carleton claimed that Kadras continued resisting, the committee found Carleton’s act of punching Kadras in the stomach - 12 - No. 06-3900 Walker v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction unjustified. Later, as Carleton continued escorting Kadras, Kadras began walking erratically, wandering from side to side on the walkway in spite of Carleton’s orders to walk forward. Carleton directed Kadras to walk straight ahead by striking him on the side of the face or head. The committee found some degree of force was justified to guide Kadras, but that striking him in the face was excessive. Id. See also Monyak Report, JA 241-44. Warden Thomas determined that Carleton had committed several violations, including physical abuse of an inmate. She directed that he be discharged, effective March 11, 2002. JA 212. Carleton challenged his termination by filing a grievance, which was eventually submitted to arbitration. On August 14, 2002, the arbitrator issued a Bench Decision and Award, ruling that Carleton’s termination was not for just cause. JA 213. Carleton was reinstated effective August 25, 2002, subject to a “last chance agreement” ordered by the arbitrator and signed by Carleton, a union representative, and a representative of the Department. JA 214. All lost time was converted to administrative leave without pay. The district court concluded that Carleton was, in the circumstances of his termination, similarly situated to Walker. Opinion p. 8, JA 20. Carleton was subject to supervision by the same warden, violated the same rule by physically abusing an inmate, engaged in arguably similar misconduct, and was consequently discharged from employment. Yet, because Carleton was so similarly situated—having received the same discipline from the same supervisor for the same sort of misconduct—his case offers no support for the claim that race discrimination played a role in Warden Thomas’s decision to terminate Walker. In fact, Carleton’s case actually refutes Walker’s claim, demonstrating that Warden Thomas, in two decisions approved by the Department, imposed the same discipline upon similarly situated employees, irrespective of their skin color. Hence, - 13 - No. 06-3900 Walker v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction Carleton’s case was correctly deemed not to give rise to an inference of discrimination, because he was not treated by Thomas or the Department any less harshly or more favorably than Walker. Id. Walker contends the more favorable treatment consists of Carleton’s reinstatement. Yet, as the district court observed, Carleton’s reinstatement was not Warden Thomas’s decision. Thomas aff. ¶ 10, JA 123-24. She imposed consistent discipline. Carleton’s reinstatement was the product not of Thomas’s decision nor of any other Department official’s decision, but of an arbitrator’s award pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance procedure. As such, Carleton’s reinstatement by arbitration award hardly evidences discrimination by Warden Thomas or the Department. Because the more favorable treatment received by Carleton was not attributable to either defendant, the district court properly concluded that Carleton was not similarly situated to Walker in the circumstances of his reinstatement. Walker contends, however, that Carleton’s reinstatement was ordered by the arbitrator only after the Department withdrew its opposition to the grievance. Indeed, there is support for the proposition that the award was premised on the parties’ mid-arbitration settlement agreement. Carleton dep. p. 11, JA 386. According to Carleton, Department officials made a settlement proposal after hearing his witnesses testify to the effect that the warden’s decision to discharge him was contrary to the Use of Force Committee’s recommendation. Id. at 12, JA 387. Yet, Walker contends, when he asked for a similar accommodation from the Department prior to arbitration of his grievance, the Department declined. Mabe dep. p. 22, JA 419. So, it is the Department’s refusal to settle Walker’s grievance like it settled Carleton’s that is said to evidence race discrimination. Again, such an inference is reasonably justified only if - 14 - No. 06-3900 Walker v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction Carleton and Walker were similarly situated in all relevant respects. It is Walker’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his situation and Carleton’s, vis-a-vis reinstatement, were “nearly identical.” Seay, 339 F.3d at 479. This showing has clearly not been made. Although the record is sketchy, it appears that Warden Thomas’s decision to terminate Carleton was contrary to the recommendation of the Use of Force Committee. The Use of Force Committee concluded that, because inmate Kadras was resisting, some use of force was justified, but the force used by Carleton was excessive. JA 251-53. The committee’s assessment is essentially corroborated by Investigator Monyak’s report. JA 241-44. The committee’s report does not include a disciplinary recommendation. Accepting Carleton’s testimony as true, as we must for purposes of summary judgment review, it appears from testimony given by a committee member to the arbitrator that the committee recommended some form of discipline less than termination. JA 387. By discharging Carleton, Warden Thomas went beyond the committee’s recommendation. It was only after Department officials were confronted with this testimony that they produced their settlement proposal, which culminated in the arbitrator’s ruling that Carleton “was not terminated for just cause.” JA 213. The Use of Force Committee did not investigate Walker’s use of force in the altercation with inmate Thomas. However, Warden Thomas’s decision to discharge Walker appears to have been entirely consistent with Monyak’s investigation assessment. Monyak concluded, based on the statements of several correction officer witnesses, that “the evidence that Walker assaulted inmate Thomas is overwhelming” and that “the amount of force used by Walker was excessive by any measure.” JA 325. The decision also appears to have been consistent with the Pre-disciplinary - 15 - No. 06-3900 Walker v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction Conference Hearing Officer’s Report concluding there was just cause for discipline. Thomas aff. ¶ 7, JA 123. Moreover, in contrast to Carleton’s situation, where inmate Kadras was found to have been resisting officers’ orders, Warden Thomas specifically found that “inmate Thomas did not offer resistance” to Walker. Id. at ¶ 8, JA 123. In other words, whereas Carleton erred by using excessive force where use of some force was deemed justified, Walker was found—by overwhelming evidence provided largely by fellow correction officers—to have assaulted inmate Thomas repeatedly without justification. Further, defendants represent that Walker’s grievance, like Carleton’s, was taken to arbitration; but unlike Carleton’s, Walker’s grievance was denied. Finally, unlike Carleton, Walker has provided no evidence of favorable testimony presented in arbitration that ought to have engendered receptivity to his plea for reinstatement. In sum, it is apparent that Carleton’s and Walker’s reinstatement situations were not nearly identical. Although both had been discharged by the same warden for similar misconduct, there are several distinguishing circumstances that plausibly explain why Carleton’s request for reinstatement was granted and Walker’s denied. That is, even assuming Carleton’s reinstatement was facilitated by the Department’s consent, and was not simply the product of the arbitrator’s award, Walker has, on the present record, clearly failed to show that his situation was so similar to Carleton’s in all relevant respects as to warrant the inference that denial of his request for reinstatement was motivated by race discrimination. Because Carleton and Walker were not similarly situated in the circumstances under which one was reinstated and one was not, evidence of Carleton’s reinstatement offers no valid support for Walker’s prima facie case. The district court did not err, therefore, in concluding that Carleton was not similarly situated in all relevant respects. - 16 - No. 06-3900 Walker v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction