Paul Toth v. City of Toledo, 480 F. App'x 827

Toth, a Caucasian patrolman for the Toledo Police Department since 2000, faced disciplinary actions from 2007 involving conduct subservient and willful violation charges, including a destruction-of-evidence issue and suspensions held in abeyance.
In October 2007, he was charged with Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, placed on restrictive duty, ordered to surrender gear, and subjected to a suspension with termination held in abeyance.
Toth also competed for sergeant promotions; he scored eighth out of forty-eight in 2006 and was not promoted in 2006–2008, with later promotions in 2010 remaining Caucasian–majority.
In 2009, Toth sued the City of Toledo and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.99, claiming race-based discipline and promotion decisions.
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants; on appeal, the court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment, applying a view favorable to the nonmovant.
The court analyzed both Eighth Amendment? No; Equal Protection under § 1983, considering whether the discipline and promotion decisions were racially discriminatory and whether Day v. Wayne County barred such § 1983 claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 Equal Protection claims are precluded by Title VII.	Toth argues Day forecloses §1983 claims predicated on Title VII rights.	Defendants contend Day requires exclusive Title VII remedy when only Title VII rights are implicated.	Day not controlling; §1983 claims for constitutional rights may proceed.
Whether Toth proved a prima facie case of reverse race discrimination in discipline.	Toth asserts disciplined more harshly as a white officer than minority comparators.	Defendants argue no background circumstances or proper comparators show disparate treatment.	No prima facie case; no background showing majority discrimination; no adequate comparators.
Whether Toth proved a prima facie case of reverse race discrimination in failure to promote.	Toth alleges the promotion decision was racially motivated against him.	Defendants point to lack of background evidence and the applicant pool showing few minorities promoted.	No prima facie case; insufficient background and comparable qualification evidence.

Day v. Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Auditors, 749 F.2d 1199 (6th Cir. 1984) (Title VII exclusive remedy when §1983 rests on Title VII rights)
Grano v. Dep’t of Development, 637 F.2d 1073 (6th Cir. 1980) (employee may sue under §1983 for constitutional rights alongside Title VII)
Weberg v. Franks, 229 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2000) (constitutional right claims may be pursued under §1983 apart from Title VII)
Annis v. Cnty. of Westchester, 36 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 1994) (employment discrimination plaintiff alleging constitutional rights may bring §1983 claim)
Sutherland v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 344 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2003) (guides disparate-treatment analysis for claims under Title VII and §1983)
Boger v. Wayne Cnty., 950 F.2d 316 (6th Cir. 1991) (discriminatory intent required; burden-shifting framework)
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (racial discrimination requires proof of discriminatory intent or purpose)
Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2006) (comparator analysis and on-duty vs off-duty conduct considerations)