Anthony Smith v. John Wilson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1529
7th Cir.2013Background
- Anthony Smith sought to be placed on Beloit’s tow list; Chief Wilson denied him repeatedly; trial evidence showed Wilson used racial slurs toward Smith and people of color.
- Wilson’s racist remarks were corroborated by multiple officers and court clerks; Smith alleged claims under Title VI, §1981, and §1983.
- Jury found race was a motivating factor in Smith’s exclusion but also found he would not have been included anyway; district court entered judgment for defendants.
- District court held the mixed verdict precluded all relief and noted the jury’s finding should be embarrassing to defendants.
- Smith appealed claiming (a) new trial on weight of the evidence, (b) partial relief under mixed-motive theories, and (c) improper burden-shifting instructions; the court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The opinion emphasizes pervasive racial hostility in the Beloit police department and affirms the district court while noting costs awarded to defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mixed-motive relief is available under Title VI/§1981/§1983 | Smith seeks partial relief despite no explicit statutory authorization | Defendants argue no authorized mixed-motive relief outside Title VII | No mixed-motive relief under these statutes |
| Who bears the burden to prove causation (but-for vs. motivating factor) in Title VI/§1981/§1983 claims | Smith argues for a shift to defendants after showing bias | Defendants contend burden-shifting not permitted absent statute | court adherence to statutory text; burden-shifting not adopted, but outcome unchanged |
| Whether the district court’s Equal Protection jury instruction improperly allocated burden | Smith urged proper burden-shifting instruction | Defense argued instruction was adequate | Harmless error; instruction likely would not have changed outcome |
| Whether the verdict was supported by the evidence and the rationale for the jury’s findings | Racial bias tainted the decision to exclude Smith | Inertia and logistics supported the decision to refrain from adding more tow companies | A rational jury could find inertia over bias; verdict sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (established mixed-motive framework for Title VII (but not all statutes))
- McNutt v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 141 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1998) (illustrated limited mixed-motive relief where not explicitly authorized)
- Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 591 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2010) (rejected injunctive/attorney’s fees relief for mixed-motive ADA claim)
- Greene v. Doruff, 660 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussed Gross limits on burden-shifting for non-ADEA claims)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (held but-for causation required under ADEA; impacted burden-shifting analysis)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (established Mt. Healthy burden-shifting framework in constitutional claims)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (provided framework for proving discriminatory intent and burden shifting)