David W. Carey v. United States Postal Service

812 F.2d 621 (10th Cir. 1987) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · February 23, 1987 · No. No. 85-2894

Summary

The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States Postal Service in a white employee's Title VII reverse-discrimination claim. The court held that the Postal Service's good-faith settlement of a Black employee's prior discrimination claim was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for awarding him a supervisory position, and the plaintiff presented insufficient evidence of pretext or bad faith.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Baldock, Circuit Judge; Holloway, Chief Judge; McWilliams, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
February 23, 1987
Docket number
No. 85-2894
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his Title VII reverse-racial-discrimination claim.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Parties
David W. Carey v. United States Postal Service
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

title viiracial discriminationfederal employee discriminationemployment discriminationfederal employment law

Practice areas

employment lawcivil rightsfederal employment law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Postal Service's promotion of Nix to the General Supervisor, Mails, position as part of a good-faith settlement of Nix's Title VII claim constituted an independent act of intentional racial discrimination against Carey.
  2. Whether Carey presented sufficient evidence of pretext or intentional discrimination to create a genuine issue of material fact and defeat summary judgment.

Holdings

  1. A conciliation agreement settling a Title VII claim is not, as a matter of law, an independent act of intentional discrimination against employees who are not benefited by the agreement, absent allegations and evidence that the agreement was made in bad faith and was not a bona fide attempt to conciliate the underlying claim.
  2. Summary judgment for the Postal Service was proper because Carey failed to present sufficient evidence that the Postal Service's stated reason—the good-faith settlement of Nix's Title VII claim—was a pretext for intentional racial discrimination.

Key quotations

Conciliation agreements which settle Title VII claims may not be considered independent acts of discrimination [against those not benefited by the agreement], as a matter of law, unless there are allegations of bad faith in making the agreement, that is, allegations that the agreement was not a bona fide attempt to conciliate a claim but rather an attempt to bestow unequal employment benefits under the guise of remedying discrimination. (812 F.2d at 624)

Factual background

David W. Carey, a white employee of the Postal Service, applied for a General Supervisor, Mails, position. Omar Nix, a Black employee who had filed a racial-discrimination charge after not being selected for another supervisory position, later settled his Title VII claim with the Postal Service. As part of the settlement, Nix was promoted to the vacant General Supervisor, Mails, position without a public vacancy announcement, reducing Carey's opportunities for temporary supervisory assignments and associated pay. Carey alleged that the settlement constituted reverse racial discrimination against him, but presented no evidence that the settlement was made in bad faith or was a pretext for intentional discrimination.

Procedural history

Carey filed an administrative complaint with the EEOC alleging that the Postal Service discriminated against him because he was white when it awarded a General Supervisor, Mails, position to Omar Nix as part of a settlement of Nix's prior Title VII claim. After the complaint was administratively rejected, Carey filed suit in federal district court. The district court granted the Postal Service summary judgment, finding that the settlement was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the appointment and that Carey had not shown pretext; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…