Michael K. Gray v. Arkansas Department of Housing & Urban Development

Eighth Circuit

Michael K. Gray v. Arkansas Department of Housing & Urban Development

310 F.3d 1050, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23734, 2002 WL 31545297

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 2002

Docket02-2378

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 310 F.3d 1050 (Michael K. Gray v. Arkansas Department of Housing & Urban Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael K. Gray v. Arkansas Department of Housing & Urban Development, 310 F.3d 1050, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23734, 2002 WL 31545297 (8th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Michael Gray, who is black, was hired as a Grant Coordinator for the Forrest City Housing Authority (FCHA) in October 1999 by FCHA Director Janet Duncan, who is white, and FCHA Assistant Director Wayne McNeary, who is black. In August 2000, Duncan and McNeary placed Gray on ninety-day disciplinary probation for poor job performance, including his failure to set up tenant programs. In December Gray was terminated for his continued failure to set up programs. After pursuing an administrative charge of discrimination, Gray filed this complaint against the Arkansas Department of Housing and Urban Development, the FCHA, Duncan, and McNeary, alleging that he was placed on probation and terminated on account of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000e et seq. The district court¹ granted summary judgment dismissing these claims, and Gray appeals.

In the district court, Gray asserted that he was placed on probation a few days after filing for a school board position against a white candidate; that in the months prior to his termination, he argued with Duncan over her demand that he deny a tenant access to the community center and over the data to be included in a report; and that Duncan called him an “arrogant nigger” for writing an article in a local newspaper criticizing school officials. He submitted the FCHA’s personnel policy, which provided that disciplinary action should be taken in writing and should specify the conduct which caused the probation, and should not exceed thirty days. He also submitted the affidavits of three FCHA tenants, who attested that Gray set up and reactivated programs, that he performed his job well, and that Duncan treated blacks poorly and differently than whites.

In their depositions, Duncan and McNeary testified that Gray did not achieve any success in building up tenant programs, and McNeary testified that he suggested Gray be placed on probation for ninety days to give him adequate time to correct deficiencies in his performance. At the end of the ninety-day period, the probation was extended to December 1. At that time, Duncan and McNeary discussed [1052]*1052Gray’s deficient job performance and agreed he should be terminated. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that they had provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment actions, that Gray had failed to come forward with evidence showing the reason was pre-textual, and that the termination did not violate Gray’s due process rights.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Whitley v. Peer Review Sys., Inc., 221 F.3d 1053, 1055 (8th Cir.2000). Gray was hired and fired by the same two supervisory officials within a relatively short period. Although Gray submitted evidence tending to show his job performance was better than these supervisors concluded, we agree with the district court that Gray presented insufficient evidence that the reason given by Duncan and McNeary for his discharge was a pretext for intentional discrimination. See Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771, 777, 781 (8th Cir.1995) (federal courts do not review the wisdom or fairness of employers’ business judgments, unless those judgments involve intentional discrimination). While Duncan and Gray may have disagreed over political issues and the extent of Gray’s job duties, this in and of itself does not raise an inference of discrimination. See Rose-Maston v. NME Hosps., Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (8th Cir.1998) (discrimination law does not prohibit employment decisions based on job performance, erroneous evaluations, personality conflicts, or even unsound business practices).

We also agree with the district court that Gray failed to present sufficient evidence supporting his other claims. Accordingly, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Michael Gray, who is black, was hired as a Grant Coordinator for the Forrest City Housing Authority (FCHA) in October 1999 by FCHA Director Janet Duncan, who is white, and FCHA Assistant Director Wayne McNeary, who is black. In August 2000, Duncan and McNeary placed Gray on ninety-day disciplinary probation for poor job performance, including his failure to set up tenant programs. In December Gray was terminated for his continued failure to set up programs. After pursuing an administrative charge of discrimination, Gray filed this complaint against the Arkansas Department of Housing and Urban Development, the FCHA, Duncan, and McNeary, alleging that he was placed on probation and terminated on account of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000e et seq. The district court¹ granted summary judgment dismissing these claims, and Gray appeals.

In the district court, Gray asserted that he was placed on probation a few days after filing for a school board position against a white candidate; that in the months prior to his termination, he argued with Duncan over her demand that he deny a tenant access to the community center and over the data to be included in a report; and that Duncan called him an “arrogant nigger” for writing an article in a local newspaper criticizing school officials. He submitted the FCHA’s personnel policy, which provided that disciplinary action should be taken in writing and should specify the conduct which caused the probation, and should not exceed thirty days. He also submitted the affidavits of three FCHA tenants, who attested that Gray set up and reactivated programs, that he performed his job well, and that Duncan treated blacks poorly and differently than whites.

In their depositions, Duncan and McNeary testified that Gray did not achieve any success in building up tenant programs, and McNeary testified that he suggested Gray be placed on probation for ninety days to give him adequate time to correct deficiencies in his performance. At the end of the ninety-day period, the probation was extended to December 1. At that time, Duncan and McNeary discussed [1052]*1052Gray’s deficient job performance and agreed he should be terminated. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that they had provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment actions, that Gray had failed to come forward with evidence showing the reason was pre-textual, and that the termination did not violate Gray’s due process rights.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Whitley v. Peer Review Sys., Inc., 221 F.3d 1053, 1055 (8th Cir.2000). Gray was hired and fired by the same two supervisory officials within a relatively short period. Although Gray submitted evidence tending to show his job performance was better than these supervisors concluded, we agree with the district court that Gray presented insufficient evidence that the reason given by Duncan and McNeary for his discharge was a pretext for intentional discrimination. See Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771, 777, 781 (8th Cir.1995) (federal courts do not review the wisdom or fairness of employers’ business judgments, unless those judgments involve intentional discrimination). While Duncan and Gray may have disagreed over political issues and the extent of Gray’s job duties, this in and of itself does not raise an inference of discrimination. See Rose-Maston v. NME Hosps., Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (8th Cir.1998) (discrimination law does not prohibit employment decisions based on job performance, erroneous evaluations, personality conflicts, or even unsound business practices).

We also agree with the district court that Gray failed to present sufficient evidence supporting his other claims. Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F.3d 1050, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23734, 2002 WL 31545297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-k-gray-v-arkansas-department-of-housing-urban-development-ca8-2002.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack