Comment on Palmer v. Occidental Chem. Corp. where an allegation was raised alleging racial discrimination.?

Answer 1

Based on what I read (see below), I'd say the plaintiffs filed a frivolous claim, seeing as they were unable to supply sufficient facts to support their contention.

The Facts

The plaintiffs, Tina M. Palmer, Bobby L. Davis, Jesse Cooper, Jr., John W. Leverette, Anthony J. Moore, Jim Albert Rodgers and Roderick K. Crockett are all African Americans who are or were employees of the defendant, Occidental Chemical Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. All of the plaintiffs worked at the company's Niagara Falls facility.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment and money damages for a number of alleged violations of federal and state anti- discrimination laws. Specifically, they assert that they were the victims of discrete acts of race and sex discrimination and a hostile work environment.

In response, the defendants moved for summary judgment and the plaintiffs conceded, both in its oral argument and reply papers, that their claims of discrete acts of discrimination and hostile work environment could not survive summary judgment under the National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 US 101 (2002) and other recent developments in employment law discrimination cases.

However, the plaintiffs opposed the motion for summary judgment on their remaining claim that the defendant's hiring policy was discriminatory and deprived them of the benefits of an interracial association in the workplace, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC Section Section 2000e et seq (2000).

U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York Judge William Skretny disagreed with the plaintiffs finding that they did not present a prima facie case of a discriminatory hiring policy against job applicants. The judge did not reach the issue of whether the existence of such a policy would support a claim by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs appealed.

Court Ruling

First, the Second Circuit noted that the district court rejected the plaintiff's interracial association claim for lack of evidence of a prima facie case that the defendant rejected African-American applicants on a discriminatory basis. The court determined that it would consider the viability of the interracial claim without deciding whether potential co-workers were rejected on grounds that would have given the applicants valid Title VII claims.

The plaintiffs make a third party claim that people with whom they would like to associate have been excluded from the relevant context on the basis of racial discrimination. The plaintiffs also assert a first party claim of denial of benefits of association, in a relevant context, with those who would have been included in the relevant context had they not been excluded because of a racially discriminatory selection process.

The court turned to Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 US 25 (1972) for guidance.

Relying on the broad definition of 'person aggrieved' in section 810(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 USC Section 3610(a), the Supreme Court accorded the plaintiffs standing to pursue their claims for 'loss of important benefits from interracial associations,' Id at 210, thereby implicitly permitting them to assert third party claims of racial discrimination on behalf of potential tenants, wrote Judge Jon O. Newman in the decision for the court. Three justices concurred specifically on the ground that the statute accorded standing that would have been doubtful under Article III in the absence on the statute, see Id at 212.

Since the ruling, a number of circuits have applied Trafficante to workplace context, holding that Title VII's phrase 'person claim to be aggrieved,' 42 USC Section Section 2000e-5 allows 'third-party' standing to the fullest extent permitted by Article III's case or controversy requirements. See Anjelino v. New York Times, Co., 200 F3d 73, 90, 91 & n.25 (3d Cir. 2000); EEOC v. Mississippi College, 626 F2d 477, 481-83 (5th Cir. 1980); Waters v. Heublein, Inc., 547 F2d 466, 469 (9th Cir. 1976); Gray v. Greyhound Lines, East, 545 F2d 169, 175-76 (DC Cir. 1976).
The pending case does not require us to decide whether Trafficante applies to a Title VII claim of denial of interracial association in the workplace because, in opposing the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the denial they alleged had occurred, Judge Newman found. They produced no data concerning the number of minority employees in Occidental's workforce or in the immediate area where they worked, thereby precluding any basis for determining whether their opportunity for interracial association was unduly limited.

Answer 2

Where can I read the brief?