Plaintiff Steven Baker sued defendants the City of Oklahoma City, Dorothy Symington, and James P. Linn in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma raising claims of age, gender, and racial discrimination under the ADEA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Title VII. Defendants Dorothy Symington and James P. Linn moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Steven Baker, a white male, was employed by the City of Oklahoma City for over 43 years and eventually rose to the position of Unit Operations Supervisor. In 2022, Baker hired Robert Moore as Field Operations Supervisor, but shortly thereafter began receiving reports that Moore was conducting himself unprofessionally. Baker reported Moore’s alleged misconduct to his supervisor, Defendant Linn, and Moore was subsequently placed on a special assignment.
In early 2023, Baker learned from a third-party investigator that Moore had filed a complaint against him, though the investigator told Baker the complaint was meritless. Despite Defendant Linn’s denial that Baker was harassing Moore, Baker was required to attend unsuccessful mediation. In February 2023, Baker asked Defendant Linn if he had done anything wrong, and Linn answered negatively. However, just over a month later, Baker received a letter from Defendant Symington claiming he had violated a harassment policy, followed by a similar letter in May 2023.
A pre-determination hearing was scheduled for June 9, 2023, presided over by Defendants Linn and Symington and two management specialists. At the hearing, Defendant Symington instructed Baker that either he or his representative could speak, but not both, while non-white employees were not subject to similar restrictions. Baker was told he would receive a ruling in two to three weeks but continued working while the decision was pending.
By late September 2023, Baker had not received a decision. On September 25, 2023, he filed a complaint with Defendant Linn reporting that Moore’s behavior was so problematic that employees had requested an armed guard for the job site. The next day, after meeting with Defendants Linn and Symington, Baker was fired. He was replaced by Sheila Moore, a Black female who had violated the same policy as Baker and had 31 grievances filed against her but had never been terminated. Despite Robert Moore being found in violation of the City’s policies, he was not terminated either.
Baker alleged that the City has a history of discriminating against white employees, including instances where he was instructed to hire less qualified minority applicants over more qualified white applicants and where a Management Specialist instructed his supervisor to place a tracker on his work vehicle because he is white. Baker also alleged that the City applies less stringent hiring standards to minority applicants and failed to follow progressive discipline policies in his case.
Legal Analysis
Section 1981 Claims Must Be Asserted Through Section 1983: Defendants argued that Baker’s § 1981 claim should be dismissed because he failed to assert it through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court rejected this argument, following precedent that construes all § 1981 claims as asserted through § 1983 regardless of whether the complaint specifically mentions § 1983.
Qualified Immunity Defense: Defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability. The court applied the two-prong test requiring plaintiffs to show that defendants’ actions violated a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. The court noted that asserting qualified immunity via a Rule 12(b)(6) motion subjects defendants to a more challenging standard of review than summary judgment.
Reverse Racial Discrimination Under Section 1981: The court analyzed whether Baker had plausibly alleged reverse racial discrimination. For reverse discrimination claims, plaintiffs must establish background circumstances supporting an inference that the defendant is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. The court found Baker had adequately alleged such circumstances through his claims that the City prefers minority applicants in hiring, that Defendant Linn counseled against hiring a more qualified white applicant based on race, and that employees were required to undergo discriminatory diversity training.
The court also found Baker had plausibly alleged purposeful discrimination, citing his claims that Defendant Symington limited his speaking rights at the pre-determination hearing because of his race while non-white employees faced no such limitations, and that he was replaced by a Black woman with 31 grievances after being terminated for a single grievance. The court determined both defendants personally participated in the alleged violative conduct.
Clearly Established Law: The court found it was clearly established that racial discrimination in public employment, including reverse discrimination, violates § 1981. Given the alleged egregious nature of the violations, particularly depriving Baker of equal speaking rights at his hearing because of his race, the court concluded no reasonable official could have interpreted the law as permitting such actions.
The court denied both Defendant Symington’s and Defendant Linn’s motions to dismiss, finding that Baker had stated a prima facie claim for violation of § 1981 and that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Schrag on Law 