Hardin v. Pitney-Bowes, Inc.
451 U.S. 1008
SCOTUS
1981
Check Treatment

HARDIN v. PITNEY-BOWES, INC.

No. 80-1457

C. A. 6th Cir.

451 U.S. 1008

сlarify what the Voting Rights Act and the Federal Constitution require.

For the foregoing reasons, I dissent from the denial of the petition for certiorari.

No. 80-1278. SOWDERS, WARDEN v. CLEAVER. C. A. 6th Cir. Motiоn of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauрeris granted. Certiorari denied. THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE POWELL would grant certiorari.

No. 80-1322. FAMILIA DE BOOM ET AL. v. AROSA MERCANTIL, S. A., ET AL. C. ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE BLACKMUN would grant certiorari.

No. 80-1457. HARDIN v. PITNEY-BOWES, INC. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.

The petitioner in this cаse brought suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq., alleging that respondent had unlawfully discharged him from his job. The District Court granted respondent‘s motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

. Chief Judge Edwards dissented, reasoning that summary judgment is improperly invoked where, as here, the defendant‘s motive and intent in discharging the plaintiff is at issue. Because I believe that petitioner raised a triable issue ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍of fact under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I believe that it was error to grant respondent‘s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, I would grant the petition for certiorari in order to give the case plenary consideration.

It has long been established that it is inаppropriate to resolve issues of credibility, motive, and intent on mоtions for summary judgment. It is equally clear that where such issues are presented, the submission of affidavits or deposi-tions is insufficient to support a motion fоr summary judgment. In

, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Second Cirсuit fully explored the circumstances in which summary judgment could be granted and concluded that “[a]lthough part of plaintiff‘s testimony on deposition (as to ‘stooges’ and the like) does seem ‘fantastic,’ yet plaintiff‘s credibility, even as to those improbabilities, should be left to the jury.” And this Court has recently questioned the propriety of deciding defamation cases on summary judgment whеre the defendant‘s state of mind is called into question under the “actual malice” standard.
;
. Likewise in this case, I agree, substantially for the reasons set forth by Chief Judge Edwards in ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍his dissent, that petitioner raised a triable issue of fact as to the reasons for his discharge.

This case illustrates the frequency with which courts misapprehend the rule against summary judgment. In

, for example, this Court held that top-level federal officials had only a qualified or good-faith immunity, such as that accorded in
, against damages suits for malicious institution of administrative proceedings. The Court went on, however, to reassure that such litigаtion could still be disposed of summarily. The Court asserted:

“[D]amages suits conсerning constitutional violations need not proceed to trial, but cаn be terminated ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍on a properly supported motion for summary judgment bаsed on the defense of immunity. See

. In responding to such a motion, plaintiffs may not play dog in the manger; and firm application of the Federal Rulеs of Civil Procedure will ensure that federal officials are not harassed by frivolous lawsuits.”
(footnote omitted).

For the reasons stated above and demonstrated by this case, I believe that view is wrong. Summary judgment simply may not be granted when such matters as the defendant‘s motive and intent are questioned. Thus in any suit where the defendаnt is not accorded absolute immunity, so that the defendant‘s state of mind is at issuе, it will not require an ingenious advocate to force a trial of the case. It seems to me that even the most frivolous lawsuits filed against top-level federal officials will have to be tried. Indeed, that is one reason why I dissented in

(concurring in part and dissenting in part), and remain convinced that the case was wrongly decided.

Just as summary judgment is inappropriate in qualified-immunity cases and in defamation cases, it is inappropriate here. Because petitioner raised issues going to ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍respondent‘s motive and intent, it was error to grant the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, I dissent from the denial of the petition for certiorari.