Mark Laster v. City of Kalamazoo
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4700
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Mark Laster, an African American Public Safety Officer/Emergency Officer with KDPS for 23+ years, alleges race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, ELA, and §1983.
- Plaintiff claims disparate treatment, discriminatory enforcement of policies, and retaliation for discrimination complaints.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendants (City of Kalamazoo and KDPS officers), dismissing discrimination claims and First Amendment retaliation claim.
- Court recognizes Title VII retaliation claim separately from discrimination claim and reverses as to retaliation, remanding for further proceedings.
- Plaintiff filed EEOC charges and a DOJ right-to-sue letter; internal complaints and FOIA release of his personnel file factored into the contextual chronology.
- Plaintiff resigned in September 2010 after a predetermination hearing, fearing loss of health insurance and pension benefits; district investigation followed the June 7, 2010 graduation incident with President Obama present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Laster proved a Title VII discrimination adverse action | Laster suffered constructive discharge and numerous adverse actions due to race. | No adverse employment action; resignation not a construct. discharge. | Discrimination claim fails; no constructive discharge; no adverse action established. |
| Whether the district court properly analyzed Title VII retaliation | Retaliation for complaints; district court lumped with discrimination. | Retaliation analysis not separately warranted. | District court erred by not separately addressing Title VII retaliation; remand warranted. |
| Whether Laster showed materially adverse action and causation for Title VII retaliation | Evidence of heightened scrutiny, reprimands, and investigations after complaints. | Actions may be non-dispositive individually; context matters. | Genuine issues of material fact on material adversity and causation; retaliation claim survives for further proceedings. |
| Whether First Amendment retaliation claim is viable | EEOC charges and internal complaints may implicate protected speech. | No evidence that USDA complaint caused adverse action; EEOC claims not protected. | First Amendment retaliation claim properly dismissed; but Title VII retaliation claim survives on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse action standard in retaliation context)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (clarifying McDonnell Douglas framework; prima facie case burden)
- Logan v. Denny’s, Inc., 259 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2001) (discrimination burden-shifting context; adverse action definitions)
- Michael v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 496 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2007) (retaliation standard; material adversity broader than anti-discrimination)
- Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2006) (public employee speech; retaliation framework)