Robinson v. Perales

In action in plaintiffs-employees’ section 1981 and Title VII actions against defendants-employer and certain supervisors, alleging race discrimination, racial harassment and retaliation, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff-Robinson’s motion for new trial on his retaliation claim against his employer, even though jury also found that plaintiff’s supervisor was liable on same retaliation claim, where plaintiff waived said issue by failing to request any jury instructions that would allow jury to impute liability against employer based on conduct of supervisor. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in granting defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to plaintiff-Robinson’s racial harassment claim, where plaintiff presented evidence indicating that: (1) supervisor uttered “n----r” term in plaintiff’s presence on several occasions; and (2) supervisor directed others to place plaintiff on close supervision in effort to generate infractions on plaintiff and directed others to deny plaintiff’s requests for time off soon after plaintiff had protested supervisor’s use of “n----r” term. Dist. Ct. also erred in granting defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to plaintiff-Spangler’s retaliation claim against defendants, where: (1) plaintiff refused instant supervisor’s request to place on close scrutiny plaintiff-Robinson, who had protested supervisor’s racial harassment; (2) on day after plaintiff’s refusal, he received notice of infraction; and (3) plaintiff ultimately was demoted from his job. Fact that third-party had made demotion decision did not require different result, since plaintiff alleged that biased supervisor had advisory role in demotion decision. Dist. Ct. could also deny plaintiff’s request for attorney fees, even though jury awarded plaintiff $1 on retaliation claim against supervisor, since plaintiff’s counsel had asked jury to possibly award plaintiff $800,000 on said claim.