Perkins v. Lake Cty. Dep't of Utils. - 860 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ohio 1994)

Rule:

The disposition of a motion for summary judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), which provides for the granting of such motion where, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is the court's function under such a motion to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, as opposed to endeavoring to resolve any such factual issues.

Facts:

Plaintiff Arthur Perkins was employed as a Laborer for the Lake County Department of Utilities. Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII), alleging disparate treatment in the workplace due to plaintiff’s status as an American Indian. Defendants filed two motions for summary judgment. The first motion sought partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s allegations that he was unlawfully denied promotions and promotion opportunities by reason of his national origin, on the basis that under Ohio law he was disqualified from holding the positions he sought. Defendants’ second motion attacked plaintiff’s Title VII claims on the ground that plaintiff was not, in fact, an American Indian and, therefore, not being a member of a class protected by Title VII cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination thereunder.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, should the court grant defendants’ motions for summary judgment? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court admitted the lack of a clear test for designating individuals as American Indian in § 2000e cases, but refused to hold as a matter of law that one-sixteenth Indian blood, if proved, was insufficient to establish membership in a protected class, based on national origin, as an American Indian. The court reviewed defendants' evidence suggesting that plaintiff had no Indian ancestry, was not a tribe member, and did not live in an Indian community or participate in any cultural events and plaintiff's evidence of Indian physical appearance, of plaintiff's belief and self-representation as an Indian, and of defendants' belief that plaintiff was an Indian. The court held that plaintiff showed a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was an Indian. The court also held that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether plaintiff's drug conviction precluded plaintiff from holding the jobs allegedly denied.