Williams v. Lovchik
830 F. Supp. 2d 604
S.D. Ind.2011Background
- Micah Williams, African-American, was division director of quality assurance at ISDH; Lovchik was ISDH lab director and supervisor.
- Lovchik reorganized staff, increasing Williams’ direct reports from 9 to ~27, with many staff African-American; she claimed reform to reduce reports later.
- Williams alleged racially motivated realignment and disparate treatment in pay and supervision; Lovchik denied racial motives.
- Lovchik proposed reducing Williams’ salary to align with peers and discussed this with ISDH leadership; Williams filed an EEOC charge on August 8, 2008.
- Williams was transferred to PHPER on November 24, 2008, losing supervisory responsibilities and working conditions significantly degraded; he alleged retaliation and a hostile environment.
- Williams filed a second EEOC charge on July 17, 2009; in 2011 his ISDH position was eliminated, though the suit focuses on earlier actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983/1985/1986 claims are waived and barred | Williams raised these federal claims against all defendants. | Defendants argued these claims were not properly preserved/argued. | Waived and granted summary judgment on these claims. |
| Whether Williams' defamation claim survives | Defamation by Lovchik and ISDH harmed Williams' reputation. | Defamation barred by Indiana Tort Claims Act and Lovchik’s qualified privilege. | Barred; qualified privilege protects Lovchik; act barred against ISDH under tort claim act. |
| Whether Williams' race discrimination claims under Title VII/§1981 survive | Disparate treatment and segregation effects reflect discriminatory intent. | No actionable adverse employment action; no unlawful segregation policy; disparate impact not shown. | Discrimination claims rejected; no material adverse action established. |
| Whether Williams' retaliation claim survives against the transfer | Transfer and related actions were retaliatory for EEOC filings. | Most actions were not materially adverse; transfer argued as not clearly adverse. | Summary judgment denied on retaliation claim regarding the November 24, 2008 transfer; triable issue remains. |
| Whether Williams' hostile work environment theory was preserved | Racially charged remarks increased hostile environment risk. | No properly preserved hostile environment claim; remarks are isolated. | Waived; court declines to consider hostile environment theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, 612 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010) (hostile environment framework and segregation context)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1971) (disparate impact and job relevance)
- Collins v. State of Illinois, 830 F.2d 692 (7th Cir. 1987) (adverse action from a seemingly lateral transfer with diminished duties)
- Ferrill v. The Parker Group, Inc., 168 F.3d 468 (11th Cir. 1999) (race-based job assignments and room segregation as discriminatory practice)
- Veprinsky v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 87 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 1996) (causal link and timing in retaliation)