Hunt v. City of Markham - 219 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2000)

Rule:

The fact that someone who is not involved in the employment decision of which the plaintiff complains expressed discriminatory feelings is not evidence that the decision had a discriminatory motivation. That is simple common sense. It is different when the decision makers themselves, or those who provide input into the decision, express such feelings (1) around the time of, and (2) in reference to, the adverse employment action complained of. For then it may be possible to infer that the decision makers were influenced by those feelings in making their decision.

Facts:

Four white police officers sued the City of Markham, a Chicago suburb, charging racial and age discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, respectively, and they now appeal from the grant of summary judgment for the City and the resulting dismissal of their suit. Unlike most "reverse discrimination" suits, this one does not arise out of efforts to redress historic injustices or mitigate racial tensions; it charges naked discrimination by a municipal government that is controlled by blacks, who are a majority of the local population. The mayor is black, as is a majority of the city council, over which he presides, and as are all the members of the board of fire and police commissioners, whom he appoints.

Issue:

Did the derogatory comments by black officials who made or influenced employment decisions of defendant city raise an inference of discriminatory motivation against plaintiff white police officers?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court held that the discriminatory comments allegedly made by the City’s decision makers, or persons influencing the decision makers, were sufficient to support an inference that the personnel actions and nonactions complained of were based upon discrimination. Further, since raises were a normal incident of employment, unlike discretionary bonuses, the denial of raises constituted an adverse employment action. Similarly, the failure of one plaintiff to pass the promotion test did not preclude a temporary promotion, where such a promotion was granted to a black officer after his release from prison. Finally, the fact that only one plaintiff quit the City’s employ did not preclude a finding that such plaintiff reasonably quit based on intolerable working conditions.