Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
June 17, 1986
[*889] HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:
Appellant, Don L. Parr, a white man married to a black woman, seeks reversal of the judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint against Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Company (Woodmen), in which he alleged that the company discriminated against him "because of race" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Finding that Parr's complaint set forth sufficient allegations to state a claim under both statutes, we reverse.
In late May or early June of 1982, Parr applied for a position as an insurance salesman with Woodmen. He had experience as an insurance salesman and was well-qualified for the position. The Woodmen manager [**2] who interviewed Parr told him that he would probably be hired, but that he would have to return for a second interview. The manager also told Parr that Woodmen did not employ or sell insurance to black people. Parr told the employment service which had set up his interview of the manager's remarks and informed the employment service that he was married to a black woman. A representative of the employment service told Woodmen of Parr's interracial marriage, whereupon Woodmen's manager informed the employment service that he would advise against hiring Parr. Parr was not hired.
Parr filed a charge of race discrimination against Woodmen with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue, and on May 31, 1983, Parr filed this lawsuit. 1 On November 6, 1985, the district court held that Parr's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed his action.
[**3] Parr contends that the district court erred in dismissing his lawsuit because his complaint set forth sufficient allegations to state a claim of discrimination based on an interracial marriage. Such discrimination, Parr contends, is prohibited by section 1981 and Title VII. Woodmen contends that the issue of whether section 1981 and Title VII prohibit discrimination based on an interracial marriage or association is not presented because Parr's complaint did not allege that Woodmen discriminated against him because of his interracial marriage. Rather, Woodmen contends, Parr "alleged denial of employment because his wife was black and because Woodmen discriminated against blacks." Finally, Woodmen contends that even if Title VII proscribes discrimination based upon an interracial marriage, the literal language of Title VII precludes a finding that Parr states a claim because his race "was not even arguably a factor in the alleged discrimination."
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
791 F.2d 888 *; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26223 **; 41 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 22; 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P36,531
Don L. PARR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
interracial marriage, discriminated, contends, hired, district court, discharged, discrimination claim, allegations, woman
Civil Procedure, Pleading & Practice, Pleadings, Rule Application & Interpretation, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, General Overview, Responses, Motions to Dismiss, Dismissal, Involuntary Dismissals, Failure to State Claims, Judgments, Pretrial Judgments, Judgment on Pleadings, Justiciability, Standing, Civil Rights Law, Labor & Employment Law, Title VII Discrimination, Scope & Definitions, Business & Corporate Compliance, Protection of Rights, Federally Assisted Programs, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Criminal Law & Procedure, Illegal Consensual Relations, Interracial Relations, Family Law, Marriage, Validity, Interracial Marriages, Discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Scope & Definitions, Contractual Relations & Housing, Equal Rights Under the Law (sec. 1981), Proof of Discrimination