Plaintiff Reubin E. Lacaze, Jr. sued defendants Wade Gourley, The City of Oklahoma City, OCPD Chief of Police, OCPD Major Bill Weaver, OCPD Captain Vance Allen, and OCPD Lieutenant Doug Kimberlin in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, raising claims of racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against all defendants, and conspiracy to violate civil rights against all defendants. In three orders, the Court considered these motions for summary judgment: (1) Defendant City of Oklahoma City’s motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims; (2) Wade Gourley’s motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims; and (3) Defendants Bill Weaver, Vance Allen, and Doug Kimberlin’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
In March 2018, following a demand suppression operation, a brown paper sack thought to contain methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia was not booked into evidence. Plaintiff, an OCPD sergeant responsible for booking the narcotics, became the subject of an investigation into the missing evidence. Following a predetermination hearing presided over by then-Deputy Chief Wade Gourley, Plaintiff was terminated for untruthfulness in September 2019 by Gourley, who had become the OCPD Chief of Police. Plaintiff was later reinstated following arbitration. Plaintiff sued over claims of racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against The City and racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and conspiracy to violate civil rights against all defendants.
Legal Analysis
Racial Discrimination in Violation of Title VII – City Defendant: The court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to assess the claim of racial discrimination. Plaintiff established a prima facie case of racial discrimination by showing he belongs to a protected class, suffered an adverse employment action, and the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination. The City provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination (untruthfulness), shifting the burden back to Plaintiff to show pretext. The court found that comparisons with similarly situated non-minority employees, specifically Det. Bryn Carter and Off. D.G. Brewer, who received less severe punishment for comparable violations, could lead a jury to find Plaintiff’s termination pretextual. Therefore, the City’s motion for summary judgment on this claim was denied.
Racial Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 – City Defendant: The court agreed with the City that a § 1981 claim against a state actor must be brought under § 1983, and thus Plaintiff cannot recover damages under § 1981 against the City as a matter of law. So the City is entitled to summary judgment on the § 1981 claim.
Racial Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 – Gourley Defendant: The court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to assess the racial discrimination claim under § 1981. Plaintiff established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, showing membership in a protected class, adverse employment action, and circumstances suggesting discrimination. Defendant Gourley provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination (untruthfulness). Plaintiff presented evidence suggesting the reason for termination might be pretextual, comparing his treatment with that of similarly situated white officers who received less severe punishment for comparable violations. Plaintiff’s claim survived summary judgment.
Racial Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Weaver, Allen, and Kimberlin Defendants: The court examined the claim under § 1981, which requires a plaintiff to show personal involvement in the discriminatory action by the defendants. Defendants argued that Plaintiff could not prove their personal involvement in the decision to terminate him. The court found that the evidence did not show that Defendants Weaver, Allen, or Kimberlin recommended or sought Plaintiff’s termination or were otherwise personally involved in the discriminatory action, leading to the decision to terminate Plaintiff.
Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff’s Civil Rights: All Defendants
Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim required showing a combination of two or more persons acting with a general conspiratorial objective to deprive him of his federal rights. The court found Plaintiff’s allegations of conspiracy to be conclusory without specific facts showing an agreement and concerted action among the defendants.
Conclusion
For Defendant City of Oklahoma City, the motion was granted concerning Lacaze’s claims for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and for conspiracy to violate civil rights, meaning these claims were dismissed against the City. That said, the motion was denied regarding the racial discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allowing that particular claim to proceed to trial. For Defendant Wade Gourley, the Court dismissed the conspiracy claim against him, However, his motion was denied regarding the claim of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, allowing this claim to proceed. As for Defendants Bill Weaver, Vance Allen, and Doug Kimberlin, the court granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff Lacaze’s claims against them.
Schrag on Law 