Kenneth Johnson v. Joseph Fuentes
704 F. App'x 61
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Kenneth Johnson, an African-American New Jersey State Police Lieutenant (joined 1983), was transferred in 2011 after supervisory criticism and a failed undercover operation; Superintendent Fuentes and commanding officer Silver oversaw discipline and transfers.
- Silver repeatedly criticized Johnson in April 2011 about unit supervision and demanded a timeline; no internal affairs complaint was filed and Johnson’s 2011 performance evaluation was largely exceptional.
- In July 2011 Silver requested transfers of 19 officers (including Johnson); most transferees were white; Johnson’s transfer increased his commute but the State Police provided a car and covered expenses.
- Johnson alleged Silver used racially charged remarks (e.g., “your black ass,” and “with your brothers up in Paterson”) and claimed Fuentes knew of Silver’s animus; Johnson also contested disciplinary proceedings that delayed his attempted retirements.
- Johnson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming race discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause; the District Court granted summary judgment for Fuentes and Silver, and Johnson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants intentionally discriminated against Johnson on the basis of race (Equal Protection) | Johnson says Silver’s racial comments and disparate treatment (transfer, discipline, withheld retirement benefits) show discriminatory intent | Defendants argue transfers and discipline affected officers of multiple races; comments were stray and not tied to adverse actions; no similarly situated comparator shown | No discriminatory intent shown; summary judgment for Defendants affirmed |
| Whether transfers constituted disparate treatment | Johnson contends transfer was punitive and racially motivated | Defendants state transfers of 19 officers of various races were for career development and similarly affected others | Transfers involved many non-black officers and accommodations were provided; no evidence of race-based disparate treatment |
| Whether disciplinary process and delayed retirement reflected racial animus | Johnson claims he was prevented from retiring and denied benefits due to animus | Defendants point to settlement offers, evidence of discipline across races, and lack of a proper comparator | No admissible evidence linking discipline or retirement denial to race; comparator evidence insufficient |
| Admissibility/effect of Silver’s racial remarks as proof of discrimination | Johnson relies on remarks as evidence of discriminatory motive | Defendants treat remarks as stray comments unrelated to personnel decisions | Remarks troubling but treated as stray; no causal link to adverse actions established |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 665 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2011) (purpose of Equal Protection is to prevent purposeful race discrimination)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (central purpose of Equal Protection Clause reference)
- Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 459 (3d Cir. 1992) (plaintiff may prove discriminatory intent by showing disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals)
- Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2008) (stray remarks may provide background evidence of discriminatory motive)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard when nonmoving party has burden of proof)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and materiality standard for summary judgment)
- Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (persons are similarly situated when alike in all relevant aspects)