Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Calvin Black
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2673
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Allstate Sweeping, LLC, owned by Martha Krueger and Barbara Hollis, two white women, began pressure-washing at Denver International Airport under a Denver contract in January 2006.
- Denver terminated the contract on July 1, 2007; Calvin Black, an African-American DIA contract‑compliance technician, monitored Allstate’s contract.
- Allstate alleged race- and gender-based discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI against Denver), and the Equal Protection Clause; the district court granted summary judgment to all defendants except Black.
- The district court found genuine issues of material fact about Black’s racial/gender bias and about his actions making the contract unprofitable, and it did not address Allstate’s retaliation claim.
- Black appealed arguing lack of animus evidence, lack of authority to act, unestablished hostile-work-environment theory, and lack of authority over retaliatory actions; the court held it lacked jurisdiction to review some issues but could review others under collateral‑order and qualified-immunity principles.
- The court reversed in part, granting Black summary judgment on hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims, and remanded for further proceedings on the discrimination claim based on racial/gender animus that caused contract loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1981/EP discrimination with animus | Allstate contends Black’s actions were racially/gender-based and caused contract loss. | Black argues there is insufficient evidence of animus and that the district court cannot be reversed on such factual matters. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review sufficiency of animus evidence; remands for further proceedings on discrimination tied to contract loss. |
| Authority to act on discriminatory actions | Allstate asserts Black had authority to take discriminatory actions affecting the contract. | Black contends he lacked the authority for the alleged discriminatory acts. | Court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s factual ruling on authority; dismisses this aspect on appeal. |
| Hostile-work-environment claim viability | Allstate asserts a hostile-work-environment claim based on making owners miserable. | Black argues there was no clearly established law supporting such a claim against contracting entities. | Hostile-work-environment claim is not clearly established for §1981/EP against a contractor; Black is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. |
| Retaliation claim viability | Allstate alleges Black retaliated for complaints about discrimination via adverse actions. | Black argues there was no authority to retaliate and district court did not assess retaliation evidence. | Court grants qualified-immunity-based review; finds no clear evidence of retaliatory actions, and Thus grants summary judgment on retaliation; appellate review limited by preserved record. |
| Jurisdiction to review qualified-immunity ruling | Allstate seeks review of district court denial of qualified-immunity ruling on multiple theories. | Black asserts the collateral-order doctrine allows appellate review of qualified-immunity denial. | Court holds jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the qualified-immunity issue but not the underlying factual disputes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exum v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 389 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2004) (§1981 discrimination rights extend to private/public contracts)
- Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006) (independent contractors may state §1981 claims)
- Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2009) (independent contractors may sue under §1981 for discrimination)
- Wortham v. Am. Family Ins. Group, 385 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2004) (contractor status does not preclude §1981 claims)
- Danco, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 178 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1999) (§1981 hostile-work-environment claims extend to broader contracts)
- Radentz v. Marion County, 640 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizes §1981/EP discrimination claims by entities)
- Hernandez v. Valley View Hosp. Ass’n, 684 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2012) (subjective component in hostile-work-environment analysis)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court 2006) (retaliation standard requires material adversity)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (collateral-order doctrine and reviewability of qualified-immunity rulings)
- Lewis v. Tripp, 604 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2010) (abstract questions vs. fact-specific rulings in immunity appeals)
- PowerComm, LLC v. Holyoke Gas & Elec. Dept., 657 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2011) (abstract legal questions in immunity context)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)
- Rieck v. Jensen, 651 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2011) (review of district court’s fact-based denial in immunity appeal)