 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mason v. Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency5/25/1999
Two employees of the Metropolitan Housing and Development Agency (MDHA) brought suit against their supervisor, the agency, and the agency's director, claiming that the supervisor had discriminated against them in violation of federal and state laws. The trial court dismissed the claims. We affirm the trial court.
I. The Complaint
Bill Mason and John McKnight, both African-Americans, were veteran employees in the paint department of MDHA, with over forty years of experience between them. After William Hickey became director of operations for the agency, Mr. Mason was demoted from paint supervisor to paint leader, though he was not reprimanded and not subjected to any disciplinary proceeding. His supervisory duties were reduced so that he eventually wound up supervising only one man, Mr. McKnight.
John McKnight had previously worked with individuals of all races at different MDHA facilities. Under Mr. Hickey, he was put on permanent station at Vine Hill Homes, where he was assigned to a crew made up of himself, Mr. Mason, and one other African-American painter. Later, he and Mr. Mason were transferred to the Hadley Park Towers.
In November of 1991, Mr. Mason applied for a supervisory position. The agency appointed a younger man to that position, a white male named Ed Cothran, who had less seniority at MDHA than Mr. Mason, and less supervisory experience.
Mr. Mason's duties included evaluating Mr. McKnight's performance. In February of 1992, Mr. Mason prepared an evaluation that rated Mr. McKnight's performance as "above standard." Mr. Hickey objected to the rating, and prevailed upon Mr. Mason to lower it to "standard." Mr. Hickey declined to sign the evaluation.
On December 12, 1992, the plaintiffs filed suit, claiming that Mr. Hickey's actions were part of a larger pattern of racial discrimination at MDHA, undertaken with the "demonstrated intention to make the painter position at MDHA a predominately `white' job ." Mr. Mason also claimed that the failure to promote him amounted to age discrimination. The plaintiffs asked for actual damages, and for punitive and compensatory damages of $250,000, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 4-21-101, et seq. They later dropped their claims under federal law, and agreed to make the Tennessee Human Rights Act the sole basis of their action.
II. Proceedings in the Trial Court
After the complaint was filed, the lawsuit progressed at a snail's pace. It was dismissed once for lack of prosecution, and subsequently reinstated, before it was finally dismissed on summary judgment on October 22, 1996.
Most of the delay can be attributed to Mr. Drummond, the plaintiffs' attorney. He drafted and filed numerous motions (including four to be allowed to withdraw as the attorney of record) but they were frequently ineffectual, either because he filed his motions in an untimely way, failed to schedule hearings on the motions, failed to file supporting documents to support the motions, or failed to serve opposing counsel. Disputes over discovery also hampered progress on this case. The following account is a bare outline of those proceedings which moved the case forward. It omits most of the filings and maneuvers which ultimately served only to delay the final resolution.
MDHA responded to the complaint on May 13, 1993. The agency claimed that the plaintiffs' allegations as to the defendants' intentions or motives amounted to conjecture and supposition, and did not state facts to which an appropriate response could be made. They also advanced two affirmative defenses: that the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|