Erin O'Donnell v. City of Cleveland
838 F.3d 718
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- In November 2012, after a 25-minute high-speed chase in Cleveland, 13 officers fired 139 shots, killing two African American occupants; nine officers (eight Caucasian, one Hispanic) involved were plaintiffs here.
- Under Cleveland’s Post Traumatic Incident Protocol (PTIP), officers involved in deadly-force incidents are placed on restricted duty (the “Gymnasium”) for a default 45-day cooling-off period; extensions require recommendation/clearance from medical/stress consultants and Chief discretion.
- Chief McGrath initially assigned the plaintiffs to restricted duty, issued a written order returning them to full duty in June 2013 but (he says) verbally instructed commanders to keep them on transitional/non-sensitive assignments; upon discovering they had returned to full duty he reassigned them to restricted duty until investigations concluded.
- Plaintiffs allege they were kept on restricted duty longer than similarly situated African American officers after deadly-force incidents because of racial discrimination and seek relief under Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02 (Title VII standard), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1983, and breach of contract.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants (City and officials); the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie discrimination case or show pretext and lacked a protected property interest for due-process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs proved racial discrimination under Ohio law/Title VII (direct or circumstantial evidence) | Prior Cleveland cases and statistics show discriminatory treatment of white officers; spreadsheet proves similarly situated comparables and disparate treatment | No direct evidence linking McGrath to discriminatory animus; spreadsheet is unreliable and omits relevant variables; PTIP actions were nondiscriminatory and justified | Affirmed: plaintiffs failed to prove direct evidence or meet modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie requirements (comparables insufficient) |
| Whether defendants’ proffered reason (administrative error/need to await investigations) was pretext for race discrimination | Reassignment was pretextual and driven by media/political pressure and racial tensions, not the asserted discovery of the error | McGrath honestly believed officers had been returned to full duty contrary to his verbal direction and thus lawfully reimposed restricted duty pending prosecutor review | Affirmed: plaintiffs did not show the proffered reason was a pretext; no contrary evidence to rebut McGrath’s explanation |
| Whether plaintiffs stated an Equal Protection / §1983 claim based on discriminatory intent | Plaintiffs argue differential treatment versus African American officers demonstrates Equal Protection violation | Plaintiffs did not show racially discriminatory intent or purpose | Affirmed: no evidence of discriminatory intent; Equal Protection claim fails |
| Whether plaintiffs had property interests (overtime, secondary employment, assignments) or exhausted CBA grievance before suing (breach of contract) | CBA creates entitlement to such benefits; grievance would have been futile because McGrath was involved | CBA provisions are discretionary; plaintiffs did not attempt available contractual remedies | Affirmed: no protected property interest; breach claim properly dismissed for failure to pursue contractual grievance procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871 (standing and summary judgment evidence standards) (discussing how district courts treat factual disputes on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (requiring more than a scintilla of evidence to defeat summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for proving disparate-treatment discrimination under Title VII)
- Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden-shifting under McDonnell Douglas)
- Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (use and limits of statistical/regression evidence in discrimination cases)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir.) (standards for similarly situated comparators)
- Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (6th Cir.) (three ways to establish pretext)
- Glover v. St. Louis–San Francisco Ry. Co., 393 U.S. 324 (grievance exhaustion and the narrow exception when grievance process is futile or collusive)
- Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland, 766 F.3d 580 (6th Cir.) (honest belief doctrine protects employers if belief was reasonable)