'Employment Law' 6th Edition by John Jude Moran

Case 9.7

Harold W. Hansborough, Jr. v. City of Elkhart Park and Recreation

The issue is whether a person may claim race discrimination against a member of the same race.

The plaintiff alleges that he has been discriminated against in violation of Title VII by his supervisors at the City of Elkhart's Mayor's Summer Youth Corp Program. The Recreation Supervisor for the Parks and Recreation Department and the supervisor of the Mayor's Summer Youth Corp Program, Ben Barnes, is a black male. The plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Virta Vance, is a black female. Mr. Hansborough is alleging both race and sex discrimination. Thus, the first issue this court must address is whether intraracial discrimination is actionable under Title VII. The exact issue before this court is whether discrimination by a black individual against another black individual because of the fact that he is a black person is actionable under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("1964 Act").

For the reasons expressed below, this court holds that intraracial discrimination is actionable under Title VII. Given this finding, the court then addresses a second issue: whether Hansborough has sustained his burden of proof to establish his prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII.

Interracial Discrimination

An examination of the statute reveals that it is essentially neutral on the question of intraracial discrimination.

The Supreme Court explained that both Jews and Arabs were groups intended to be protected by the statute and concluded that "Jews are not foreclosed from stating a cause of action against other members of what today is considered to be part of the Caucasian race."

In Saint Francis College, the Supreme Court stated unequivocally that one Caucasian could maintain a 1981 suit against another. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice White explained that "Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics."

The Supreme Court came to its conclusion partly because of the misunderstandings and arbitrariness inherent in racial classifications. Specifically, the Court noted:

There is a common popular understanding that there are three major human races Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Many modern biologists and anthropologists, however, criticize racial classifications as arbitrary and of little use in understanding the variability of human beings. It is said that genetically homogeneous populations do not exist and traits are not discontinuous between populations; therefore, a population can only be described in terms of relative frequencies of various traits. Clear-cut categories do not exist. The particular traits which have generally been chosen to characterize races have been criticized as having little biological significance. It has been found that differences between individuals of the same race are often greater than the differences between the `average' individuals of different races. These observations and others have led some, but not all, scientists to conclude that racial classifications are for the most part sociopolitical, rather than biological in nature.

Certainly, this Supreme Court decision has made clear that discrimination claims should not be barred merely because the plaintiff(s) and defendants belong to the same race.

Thus, the trier of fact in this case will not focus on physiognomic characteristics. Instead, the focus in this court's determination of whether this is an instance of intraracial discrimination will be on the defendant's perception of Hansborough as belonging to a particular group. Or in other words, did the City of Elkhart discriminate against Hansborough because he was born black?

Title VII

For the plaintiff, here, it is a relatively unique and difficult burden of proof. One has to be very careful to be sure that what in other interpersonal relationships might be described as discrimination is not just plain, ordinary, personal antagonism unrelated to the color of skin.

Thus, in this case, Hansborough must show that he was qualified for the job he held with the defendant and that he was performing the duties of that job satisfactorily.

The City of Elkhart claims that the plaintiff was terminated for the following reasons:

1) repeatedly came to work late;

2) insubordinate to supervisor and other staff members;

3) verbally abused and used profanity in the children's presence;

4) did not fulfill responsibilities on the job, nor did he do what was asked of him; and

5) did not demonstrate respect for or get along with fellow workers.

Additionally, the supervisor of the Mayor's Summer Youth Program, Ben Barnes, states in his affidavit that he attempted on more than one occasion to discuss the above-listed problems with Mr. Hansborough to no avail. Further, Mr. Barnes states,

"that when Mr. Hansborough contacted me with regard to his need for time off work to appear in Court regarding criminal conversion charges, I felt that it would be in the best interest of the program and the children to terminate Mr. Hansborough's employment in light of that and the numerous other problems we had had."

More importantly, however, for purposes of summary judgment, the plaintiff has offered nothing to demonstrate that others of any race, color, or sex were treated differently. In fact, his statements only support the statements made in Ben Barnes' affidavit. The plaintiff has not demonstrated that he was doing his job well enough to meet the employer's reasonable requirements. Rather, the plaintiff engages in supposition and conjecture that his supervisors and fellow employees were "out to get him." "A subjective belief of discrimination no matter how genuine, cannot be the sole basis for a finding of discrimination." For these reasons, this court holds that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facia case of racial or sexual discrimination under Title VII.

Case Questions (Please explain your response in full details)

1. Do you agree with the court's findings?

2. Is interracial discrimination covered under race or color discrimination?

3. Why would Hansborough, who is black, believe that Barnes, who is also black, discriminated against him because of his race?