Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Discriminating against white county managers because of their race ruled unlawful

Discriminating against white county managers because of their race ruled unlawful
Bryant v Jones, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket #06-16591, Decided July 31, 2009

In Ricci Et Al. V. DeStefano, USSC, No. 07?1428, decided June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court held that that race-based action taken by a public employer is prohibited by Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate, by strong evidence, that had if it had not taken such action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute.

In a 42 U.S.C. 1981 action challenging a county's alleged plan to replace white county managers with African-Americans, denial of qualified immunity to certain county officials was affirmed because, said the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a reasonable county official would have known that discriminating against county managers because of their race was unlawful.

In November 2000, Vernon Jones, an African-American, was elected DeKalb County, Georgia?s Chief Executive Officer. After assuming office on January 1, 2001, Jones publicly announced plans to make the employees of DeKalb County ?look like DeKalb County.? Jones later explained that this meant bringing a ?darker administration? to ?the new DeKalb County.?

According to the decision, in order to attain his objective, Jones and his administration implemented an aggressive restructuring program of the county?s government that adversely affected a number of DeKalb county's white administrators.

Such action, said the court, was unlawful, noting that in Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, ?The Supreme Court explained that a constitutional right is ?clearly established? when the ?contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear [such] that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.?

Applying this standard, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to show that the government official?s conduct specifically has been held unlawful, but rather that ?in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness [was] apparent.?

Anderson, said the Circuit Court, demonstrates that a right may be clearly established irrespective of whether courts have specifically deemed the cause of action as being available under a particular legal theory.

Thus ?the question is not whether a reasonable officer would know that a discriminatory retaliation claim was available under Title VII or §1981; ? the salient question is whether the state of the law at the time provided officials fair warning that their discriminatory retaliatory conduct was unlawful.?

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200616591.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on August 11, 2009 (boomark / email).