SOLUTION: Webster University Hudson V City of Highland Park Case Study

[ad_1]
Hudson v. City of Highland Park, Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2018 - Google Scholar 4/16/20, 5*10 PM PETER HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-12369. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. November 30, 2018. Peter Hudson, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. Levi, Robert L. Levi P.C. City of Highland Park, Michigan & Derek L. Hillman, Defendants, represented by James W. McGinnis & William R. Ford, William R. Ford and Associates, P.C. Makini Jackson, Defendant, represented by Erika Lorraine Davis, Butler Davis, PLLC. OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS HIGHLAND PARK AND HILLMAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [121], GRANTING DEFENDANT JACKSON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [123], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [124] STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, District Judge. After Highland Park terminated his business as a spiritfighter, Accuser filed help opposite Defendants City of Highland Park, Highland Park Spirit Chief Derek Hillman, then-Highland Park Human Resources Director Makini Jackson, the Leona Group, LLC, and Carmen Willingham. On April 7, 2017, Accuser filed an amended annoyance. ECF 61. Defendants Leona Group, LLC and Carmen Willingham were terminated on June 30, 2017, and October 2, 2017, respectively. See ECF 72. On July 25, 2018, Defendants Highland Park and Hillman filed a disturbance for abridgment judgment. ECF 121. On July 27, 2018, Defendant Jackson filed a disturbance for abridgment award. ECF 123. On July 27, 2018, Accuser filed a disturbance for abridgment award. ECF 124. The Affect is abundantly ftabulate after a suitableness the event, has reviewed the briefs and finds that a hearing is useless. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). For the deduces beneath, the Affect gain allot the Defendants' disturbances and delayhold Plaintiff's disturbance. BACKGROUND[1] The subjoined lawfuls opposite Defendants Highland Park, Hillman, and Jackson wait: (1) a Title VII[2] lawful for ill-assorted tenor opposite Highland Park; (2) a Title VII lawful for antagonistic result environment opposite Highland Park; (3) a Title VII lawful for unfair empty opposite Highland Park; (4) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawful for donation of the lawful to unreserved oration opposite all retaining Defendants;[3] (5) a § 1983 lawful for protest of due regularity opposite all retaining Defendants; and (6) a Michigan aver law breach-ofcontract lawful for scarcity to procure earned equivalent upon degree opposite Highland Park. See ECF 61. Plaintiff's lawfuls parent from his business, inauguration in 2003, and his 2015 degree from the Highland Park spirit https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=136594319242169988&q=Hudson+v.+Highland+Park&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_ylo=2018 Page 1 of 11 Hudson v. City of Highland Park, Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2018 - Google Scholar 4/16/20, 5*10 PM department. See id. at 1295-1310. Accuser is a Christian and holds manifold analogous opinions; he to-boot wears a cantankerous and says excellence precedently meals. Id. at 1296. Coworkers made comments or gestures that Accuser perceived as attacking him for his Christian beliefs. Id. at 1300. For specimen, they made remarks encircling God and Jesus Christ that Plaintiff perceived as blasphemous, including that Jesus had sex after a suitableness the nightwalker in the Bible. Id. Plaintiff's coworkers made fun of the cantankerous he wore, asked him whether he had oppressed heednear suitableness he prayed precedently eating, and asked him if it was opposite his godliness to result on his birthday. Id. Plaintiff's colleagues never discouraged him from saw orisons precedently meals. ECF 121-2, PgID 2935-36. Plaintiff afflicts that the other spiritmen aspected sexually entreative esthetic and had sex at the spirit position.[4] Id. at 1296-97. Plaintiff's coworkers allegedly ignored cleaning and livelihood duties at the spirit position and missed spirit runs. Id. at 1298. In localation to alleging leave by his adherent spiritfighters, Accuser asserts ungodliness by Defendants Hillman and Jackson. Defendant Hillman failed to rebuke the other spiritmen for attractive in sexual comportment. ECF 61, PgID 130001. Defendant Jackson allegedly had sex after a suitableness a spiritman in an automobile during result hours. Id. at 1301. Accuser never reputed the spiritmen's sexual comportment to either Hillman or Jackson. ECF 121-2, PgID 2887-88 (confirmation of Plaintiff). Plaintiff to-boot never common a write-up or a bad assignment suitableness populated by Defendant Highland Park. Id. at 2921, 2940. During Plaintiff's business, Defendants became restnear after a suitableness two discrepancies in his erasheets: (1) Plaintiff claimed spirit engine operator ("FEO") hours opposing not trade the necessary tabulate ("FEO variation"), and (2) Plaintiff chronicled era resulting for the spirit line when Accuser chronicled some of the corresponding hours ("doubledipping") resulting for a instruct ("double-dipping variation"). ECF 61, PgID 1302-07. Accuser acknowledges the discrepancies, but maintains that he had real deduces for logging them. Id. at 1302-03 (touching FEO variation), 1303-04 (touching double-dipping variation). On May 20, 2015, Hillman prisoner Accuser of the FEO variation and sent him residence pending elevate research. ECF 61, PgID 1303; ECF 121, PgID 2829. On May 28, 2015, Defendants held a hearing to examine twain discrepancies after a suitableness Plaintiff. ECF 123-1, PgID 3152. Accuser believed, besides, that the hearing allied merely to the FEO variation. ECF 61, PgID 1307. During the hearing, Accuser invoked his Garrity lawfuls and did not response any questions. ECF 121, PgID 2830; see generally Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (trade that law enforcement officers and other public employees bear the lawful to be unreserved from warranted self-incrimination); see to-boot ECF 123-1, PgID 3154 (Jackson's confirmation that she did not foreclosure Accuser responding to the assertions at the argueion); ECF 128, PgID 4552 (Plaintiff noting that he exercised his lawful to wait dormant). Accuser was projecting on May 28, 2015 for twain the FEO and double-dipping discrepancies. ECF 121-4, PgID 3032 (Hillman test). On June 1, 2015, the Police Officers Association of Michigan ("POAM") filed a hardship on Plaintiff's aid, seeking redress for his deprivation. ECF 61, PgID 1308. The hardship was robbed at Step 1. ECF 128-10, PgID 4757. On June 9, 2015,[5] Highland Park emptyd Accuser from business. See ECF 129-7, PgID 4905. The confederation then updated the hardship to advert Plaintiff's degree. ECF 61, PgID 1308. The Step 2 hearing was reset for June 25, 2015.[6] See ECF 121-5, PgID 3050. On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff's colleagues elected new confederation representatives. Id. at 1309. On June 24, 2015, the POAM notified Highland Park of its give after a suitablenessdrawal from representing the spiritmen. ECF 128-15, PgID 4790. That corresponding day, Jackson unctuous canceled the Step 2 hardship argueion scheduled for June 25. Id. Jackson explained that the change in confederation representatives prompted the cancellation. ECF 121-5, PgID 3053. The superintendent of the open confederation officers then sent an email to Jackson supplicateing a argueion on July 10, 2015 to regulate Plaintiff's hardship. See ECF 123-1, 3305-06. She replied that they could address the hardship on July 8, 2015. Id. at 3306; see to-boot ECF 123, PgID 3135. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=136594319242169988&q=Hudson+v.+Highland+Park&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_ylo=2018 Page 2 of 11 Hudson v. City of Highland Park, Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2018 - Google Scholar 4/16/20, 5*10 PM Mitch Erwin, a constituent of the open confederation leadership, testified that Plaintiff's argueion after a suitableness Jackson was rescheduled to July 8, 2015 and that Accuser objected due to receiving merely one day's note. ECF 121-6, PgID 3089. According to Mr. Erwin, Accuser demanded that his hardship be elated to amity. Id. Plaintiff's confirmation corroborates Mr. Erwin's testimony. See ECF 128-2, PgID 4592-93; ECF 129-3, PgID 4870-71; ECF 129-7. Mr. Erwin believed that Plaintiff needed to drain the hardship progress precedently going to amity. ECF 121-6, PgID 3089. Accuser never contacted Mr. Erwin to supplicate a rescheduled argueion after a suitableness Defendant Jackson. Id. On July 7, 2015, Interopen Association of Spirit Fighters ("IAFF"), the new bargaining agents, recknear Hudson's grievance. ECF 123, PgID 3135; ECF 61, PgID 1309. Jackson explained that she did not settle Plaintiff's deprivation or empty owing the confederation, and not the peculiar employee, needed to continue amity inferior the collective bargaining obligation. ECF 121-5, PgID 3053. Accuser then filed a annoyance alleging that his lawfuls were violated. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Affect may allot abridgment award "if the movant pretences tshort is no true contest as to any esthetic truth and the movant is entitled to award as a subject of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In enjoin to pretence that a truth is, or is not, genuinely contestd, twain parties are required to either "cit[e] to detail talents of esthetics in the record" or "show[] that the esthetics cited do not examine the shortness or nearness of a true contest, or that an counteractive device cannot produce penetrable token to foundation the truth." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). A truth is "material" for purposes of abridgment award if test of that truth would examine or repel an inherent element of the inducement of possession or apology. Kendall v. Hoaggravate Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984). A contest aggravate esthetic truths is "genuine" "if the token is such that a weighty jury could revert a sentence for the nonmelting device." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In consequently cantankerousmotions for abridgment award, a affect "must evaluate each disturbance on its own merits and aspect all truths and inferences in the incompact most indulgent to the nonmoving party." Westfield Ins. Co. v. Tech Dry, Inc., 336 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). But the Affect may not judge the token or compel findings of truth. 60 Ivy St. Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435-36 (6th Cir. 1987). The melting device has the package of pretenceing that no true offspring of esthetic truth exists. Id. at 1435. Once the melting device carries the primal package of demonstrating that tshort are no true offsprings of esthetic truth, the package shifts to the nonmelting device to give local truths to examine that tshort is a true offspring for tribulation. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. DISCUSSION I. Defendants' Motions for Abridgment Judgment The Affect gain examine twain disturbances for abridgment award by Defendants coincidently owing they complicate the corresponding or common truthual allegations. A. Title VII Ill-assorted Tenor (Highland Park)[7] Plaintiff alleges that Highland Park violated Title VII by subjecting him to ill-assorted tenor. See ECF 61, PgID 1310. Disparate tenor occurs when an master "simply treats some vulgar near favorably than others owing of their race, falsification, godliness, sex, or open spring." Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 n.15 (1977). When a accuser gives merely elaborate token of discernment, a affect examines the lawful inferior the https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=136594319242169988&q=Hudson+v.+Highland+Park&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_ylo=2018 Page 3 of 11 Hudson v. City of Highland Park, Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2018 - Google Scholar 4/16/20, 5*10 PM McDonnell Douglas[8] package-shifting advent. Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 501 F.3d 695, 703 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 865-66 (6th Cir. 2003)). Inferior the McDonnell Douglas framework, the accuser bears the primal package of giveing a prima facie event of occupied discernment. Id. The package then shifts to the master to volunteer a real, non-discriminator sense for its possessions. Id. Finally, the package shifts end to the accuser to pretence that the master's sense is pretence. Id. To pretence pretence, a accuser must incline the affect that a discriminatory deduce over slight motivated the master or that the master's proffered sense is bad of credence. Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). To compel his prima facie pretenceing of ill-assorted-tenor holy discernment, Accuser must demonstrate: (1) company in a defended systematize; (2) that he suffered from an counteractive business possession; (3) that he was adapted for the position; and (4) that a peculiar who was delayout the defended systematize and commonly situated to Accuser in all pertinent commendations was treated amend than he was. Clay, 501 F.3d at 703 (citations omitted). The parties do not contest that Accuser satisfies the principal three prongs of his prima facie pretenceing. Compare ECF 121, PgID 2837-39 after a suitableness ECF 125, PgID 3965-67. Accuser fails, besides, to examine the fourth prong of the prima facie event. Plaintiff alleges that Highland Park neither projecting nor terminated a non-Christian—Mr. Baetz[9]—for doubledipping on era sheets. ECF 61, PgID 1314-15. Accuser asserts that the alleged ill-assorted tenor satisfies the fourth prong of the prima facie event. But Mr. Baetz was not prisoner of twain a double-dipping variation and an FEO variation. Thus, Mr. Baetz was not commonly situated to Accuser in all pertinent commendations. Accuser failed to raise his package of persuasion. His lawful for Title VII ill-assorted tenor does not outlast abridgment award. B. Title VII Antagonistic Result Environment (Highland Park) "The McDonnell Douglas package-shifting advent to-boot applies to antagonistic-workenvironment lawfuls." Clay, 501 F.3d at 706. To examine a prima facie event, Accuser must pretence: (1) constituentship in a defended systematize; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was holyly fixed; (4) the harassment unreasonably interfered after a suitableness his result execution by creating an environment that was unpromising, antagonistic, or offensive; and (5) master obligation. See id. (citing Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir. 1999)). A antagonistic result environment occurs "[w]hen the resultplace is instild after a suitableness discriminatory horror, lampoon, and insult that is sufficiently violent or pervasive to vary the provisions of the victim's business and engender an discordant afloat environment." Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (inside quotations and citations omitted). "In determining whether the alleged harassment is sufficiently violent or pervasive to organize a antagonistic result environment," the Affect "must observe the recital of the mode." Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 562 (6th Cir. 1999). "[S]imple teasing, unpremeditated comments, and sickly incidents (unnear extremely weighty) gain not equality to discriminatory changes in the provisions and provisions of business." Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (inside quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff alleges that Highland Park violated Title VII by subjecting him to a antagonistic result environment. ECF 61, PgID 1310. Specifically, Accuser alleges that Highland Park "discriminat[ed] opposite Hudson after a suitableness deference to his equivalent, terms, provisions, or privileges of business, owing of his godliness." Id. at 1311. He maintains that the alleged harassment inducementd him humiliation, valley, eagerness, and pain. Id. Plaintiff fails to gratify the third, fourth, and fifth prongs of a antagonistic-workenvironment prima facie event. First, he fails to allege any truths pretenceing that the sexual comportment was harassment opposite him fixed on his godliness. Cf. Bethea v. Equinox Fitness Club, 544 F. Supp. 2d 398, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (trade that hardy employees failed to pretence that witnessing gym constituents' sexual intelligence in men's locker rooms was harassment fixed on the employees' sex). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=136594319242169988&q=Hudson+v.+Highland+Park&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_ylo=2018 Page 4 of 11 Hudson v. City of Highland Park, Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2018 - Google Scholar 4/16/20, 5*10 PM Second, Accuser fails to demonstrate that the harassment was sufficiently violent or pervasive to organize a antagonistic result environment. To the degree that Accuser alleges that the event of sexual intelligence discurrent coworkers was harassment, the event of such comportment is imperfectly violent. Sexual intelligence discurrent coworkers, or the scarcity to correct such sexual comportment, does not instil the resultplace "after a suitableness discriminatory horror, lampoon, and insult" sufficient to engender an discordant resulting environment. Harris, 520 U.S. at 21. See, e.g., Kriescher v. Fox Hills Golf Resort & Conf. Ctr., 384 F.3d 912, 914-15 (7th Cir. 2004) (uptrade district affect regulating on abridgment award that sexually permissive resultplace region was not sufficiently antagonistic). Similarly, the alleged device of keeping back sexual intelligence discurrent employees is not violent abundance to engender a antagonistic result environment. See id. Further, Accuser fails to pretence that his coworkers' alleged sexual intelligence varyed the provisions of or counteractively unnatural the provisions of his business. Accuser common common result assignments and did not take an strange compute of write-ups. ECF 121-2, PgID 2921, 2940 (Plaintiff's test). Moreover, Accuser cannot pretence master obligation. Accuser advances two theories of Highland Park's obligation: (1) a theory of respondeat better for slatternly supervision of employees and (2) a device or performance of "keeping back sexual leave by its employees." ECF 61, PgID 1311. But Accuser never reputed his colleagues' sexual comportment or alleged scarcity to empty their duties to his supervisors. ECF 121-2, PgID 2887-88; ECF 121-3, PgID 3018, 3020. Plaintiff never alleged that Hillman or Jackson made or witnessed the remarks.[10] See ECF 121-2, PgID 2903. Because Plaintiff did not afflict of his coworker's sickly comments encircling Jesus Christ, Plaintiff's cantankerous, and Plaintiff's premeal orison to Hillman or Jackson, Accuser cannot manifestation experience to them or to Highland Park. See ECF 61, PgID 1301; ECF 121-2, PgID 2943-44 (Plaintiff's test); see to-boot Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 516 (6th Cir. 2009) (trade that the accuser failed prima facie event by not pretenceing master knew or should bear notorious of harassment). Accuser short fails to pretence master obligation, the fifth prong of the prima facie event. Plaintiff's antagonisticworkenvironment lawful for-this-reason does not outlast abridgment award. C. Title VII Unfair Empty (Highland Park) To the degree Plaintiff's Count II lawful—labeled "ill-assorted tenor, deprivation and empty"—pleads requital, it cannot outlast abridgment award. Plaintiff alleges that Highland Park violated Title VII by wrongabundantly discharging him from business. ECF 61, PgID 1312. He alleges that twain Hillman and Jackson knew of his beliefs touching sexually entreative esthetic and sexual comportment and that Hillman and Jackson were "predisposed to see opposite peculiars who believed and espoused Christian beliefs encircling pornography and unfair sexual kinsfolk." Id. at 1313. Accuser argues that Highland Park is vicariously unlawful for Hillman and Jackson's possessions suspending and terminating him. Id. at 1315. Title VII prohibits an master from keen opposite an employee who "has opposed any performance made an occupied business performance by [Title VII], or owing he has made a carry, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an research, performance, or hearing[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Courts stir Title VII requital lawfuls inferior the McDonnell Douglas framework. E.g., Laster v. Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 730 (6th Cir. 2014). To examine a prima facie Title VII requital lawful, Accuser must pretence: (1) he affianced in intelligence defended by Title VII, (2) Defendant knew Accuser affianced in the defended intelligence, (3) Defendant took possession estheticly counteractive to Plaintiff, and (4) the defended intelligence inducementd the estheticly adve ...
Purchase response to see full attachment

[ad_2]
Source cohere