Sonya Bradley v. Steve Arwood
705 F. App'x 411
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sonya Bradley, an African‑American division legal secretary supervisor at Michigan's Attorney General offices, sued individual supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a race‑based hostile work environment; most claims were dismissed except those against Susan Przekop‑Shaw (and initially Peter Kotula).
- Bradley alleges Przekop‑Shaw threatened to place Michael Lockman (a white attorney who previously yelled a racial slur at Bradley) in her unit, treated a similarly classified white coworker (Amy Gonea) more favorably, denied Detroit (predominantly Black) staff certain social accommodations while hosting a Lansing (predominantly white) party, imposed onerous performance demands, issued counseling memos and PIPs, and interfered with leave.
- Przekop‑Shaw moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity; the district court granted summary judgment for Kotula and Taylor but denied it as to Przekop‑Shaw. Przekop‑Shaw appealed the denial of qualified immunity.
- On interlocutory review the Sixth Circuit accepted Bradley’s version of disputed facts for purposes of the qualified immunity inquiry and addressed the mixed question whether those facts could constitute a constitutional violation.
- The panel concluded Bradley had presented sufficient comparative and circumstantial evidence (threatened transfer of Lockman, disparate treatment versus Gonea, holiday‑party exclusion, cumulative reviews/counseling) that a reasonable jury could find race‑based harassment that was severe or pervasive, and affirmed denial of qualified immunity and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity on interlocutory appeal | District court denial of qualified immunity is appealable as a legal/mixed question | Same | Court exercised jurisdiction: denial presents mixed questions of law and fact reviewable on appeal |
| Whether alleged conduct was race‑based harassment ("but‑for" causation) | Bradley: threats re Lockman (history of racial slur), disparate treatment of similarly classified white peer, and differential treatment of Black Detroit staff show race‑motivated conduct | Przekop‑Shaw: no direct evidence she knew of Lockman’s prior misconduct; facially neutral acts not shown to be motivated by race | Court: viewing Bradley’s evidence in her favor, comparative and circumstantial evidence suffices to raise a jury question on race motivation |
| Whether harassment was objectively and subjectively severe or pervasive | Bradley: cumulative acts (threats, ongoing belittling, barred leave, repeated counseling/PIPs culminating in termination) formed a hostile environment | Przekop‑Shaw: isolated incidents and performance discipline fall below the "severe or pervasive" threshold; many acts were performance‑based or by other supervisors | Court: considering the totality of circumstances, a reasonable juror could find the conduct severe/pervasive enough to meet the fourth prima facie element |
| Sufficiency of evidence to overcome qualified immunity at summary judgment | Bradley: factual record and comparator testimony create inference of discriminatory intent and impact | Przekop‑Shaw: plaintiff’s assertions are conclusory, often contradicted, and lack direct proof of discriminatory intent or personal involvement in later adverse acts; §1983 requires personal participation | Court: summary‑judgment posture requires crediting plaintiff’s version; evidence is sufficient to defeat qualified immunity and send disputed factual questions to a jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (government official’s denial of qualified immunity on legal grounds is immediately appealable)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (two‑part qualified immunity framework; courts may decide order of prongs)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary judgment standard: courts need not accept blatantly contradicted versions of facts)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (factors for assessing hostile work environment: frequency, severity, physical threat, interference with work)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Title VII does not create a general civility code; conduct must be extreme to alter employment terms)
- Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., Inc., 643 F.3d 502 (plaintiff may prove race motivation by direct racial terms or comparative evidence; mixed question of law and fact reviewable)
- Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 501 F.3d 695 (hostile work environment typically involves a series of acts; comparative evidence can show racial motivation)