Metro Board of Education of Nashville, Tennessee v. Kelley Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Public Court Documents
October 7, 1985

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Grigsby v. North Mississippi Medical Center Reply Brief, 1977. 1f3ebcd1-b49a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/518fe964-832a-4f1f-896f-230c47aa3700/grigsby-v-north-mississippi-medical-center-reply-brief. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
n\ A IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT NO. 76-2207 OTHA GRIGSBY, et al.. Plaintiffs-Appellants, - v - NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER Defendant-Appellees On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi REPLY BRIEF JACK GREENBERG MELVYN R. LEVENTHAL 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 KENNETH MAYFIELD 303% West Main Street Tupelo, MS. 38801 Attorneys for Appellants Q ) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT NO. 76-2207 OTHA GRISBY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, - v - NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER Defendant-Appellees On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi REPLY BRIEF 1. Appellee now acknowledges that statistics revealing the impact of an employer's practices are fundamental to a prima facie case of racial discrimina tion. (Appellee's brief, P.22) This position is con trary to its position in the district court (O.R. 114, Tr. Tr. 894) and consequently appellee made no effort below to rebut appellants prima facie case. Appellee also apparently acknowledges that the statistics presented by appellants were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the Mental Health 3Q Complex and the Baldwyn Satellite Unit; however, accord ing to the appellee although the statistics may show class discrimination at the Mental Health Complex and the Baldwyn. Satellite Unit (the two units for which appellants were permitted discovery), such statistics were not sufficient to establish class discrimination in the Medical Center as a whole because the sample was not large enough. (Brief of Defendant Appellee, P.24) Appellee's argument fails for three reasons:- 1) statis tics relating to the Mental Health Comples and Baldwyn Satellite Unit demonstrated glaring discrimination at those particular units and by inference at the other two units of the hospital; 2) Appellants by the use of EEO-1 reports established that the pattern prevailing at the Mental Health Complex and Baldwyn Satellite Unit was present in the Medical Center as a whole; (Pi. Tr. Exh. Nos. 135, 136, 137, 138) and 3) even if the pattern of discrimination which exists at the Mental Health Complex and Baldwyn Satellite Unit does not carry an inference of discrimina tion at the other two units of the hospital, the discrim ination which exists at the Complex and Baldwyn Unit is not excused and should have been remedied by the Court. Appellee correctly states that the Mental Health Complex and the Baldwyn Satellite Unit has about 100 employees or almost 9% of the total work force. This 2 o j group of employees was not picked as a sample from the Medical Center as a whole. Instead appellants' statis tical proof emphasizes the Mental Health Complex and the Baldwyn Satellite Unit because the trial court restricted appellants discovery to those units. Nevertheless, appellants introduced into evidence EEO-1 reports filed by the Medical Center in 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 re vealing that blacks were disproportionately relegated to the lower classified jobs at the entire Medical Center. The appellee's only response to this proof is a bare assertion that the reports are of questionable probative value because of their age and because the categories of employees reflected in the EEO—1 reports are not identical in name to the five categories of employees which appellants proved were racially segregated at the Mental Health Complex and Baldwyn Satellite Unit. (Brief of Defendant-Appellee, P..25) The Reports are not outdated; they cover 1972-75 the very period at issue in this case. And although categories in the reports do not mirror categories covered by other proof, they do reveal racially segre gated job classifications with blacks relegated to inferior levels. 2. Appellee suggests that the EEOC Determination is of questionable significance because it was issued on August 16, 1974 which was one and one-half years 3 o before the case was tried (Brief of defendant-appellee, P.26) However, the relevant data is the date the allegedly unlawful discrimination occurred. The Complaint was filed on August 20, 1974, six days after the EEOC determination issued. 3. Appellee also argues that although 44 percent of the employees terminated for cause were black while only 27 percent of the workforce is black, this proof should fail because there was no proof of any policy, procedure or standard applied by the Medical Center unrelated to the orderly and efficient administration of the hospital. On the contrary,it was shown that appellee has a policy of givingunfettered discretion to department heads to dis charge employees. (Tr. Tr. 17) By admitting that 44 percent of the employees discharged were black appellee was called upon to explain why there was a gross disparity between the percentage of blacks employed and the percent age of blacks discharged for cause. ' Appellee was not able to provide any explanation. Bolton v, Murray Envelope Corp. 493 F .2d at 191 (5th Cir. 1974). 4. Appellee argues that appellants did not prove that unfettered discretion of the white department heads has a discriminatory effect on blacks. Appellee points to the unsubstantiated statement of the personnel manager who guessed that "at least half a dozen" blacks supervise whites. (Tr. Tr. 830) The personnel manager apparently guessed 4 o again when he made the unsubstantiated statement that "there are probably another ten" blacks who supervise blacks or blacks and whites. (Tr. Tr. 830) These casual assertions by the personnel manager were not supported by any records and were revealed for the first time at trial although appellants had attempted to get that information through discovery. The weakness in the statements of the personnel manager was revealed in cross-examination wherein he admitted that Mildred Barnes and Rosie Mae Richardson were two of the blacks who he judged to supervise whites. Mildred Barnes is in charge of Central Supply at the Baldwyn Unit which has only two other employees and was given her title six months after this lawsuit was filed. Rosie Mae Richardson is shift supervisor in the dietary department at the Baldwyn Satellite Unit. She does not supervise any whites. Moreover, the head supervisor over the dietary department at the Baldwyn Satellite Unit is white. Neither Mildred Barnes nor Rosie Mae Richardson has authority to hire, fire, or promote anyone. (Tr. Tr. 840-841) in any event, the overwhelming majority of supervisors with authority to discharge and promote employees are white. 5* PLAINTIFF GRIGSBY: Appellee erroneously suggests that the District Court found Otha Grigsby terminated because of non-productivity, negative responses, lack of 5 o J clinical experience and lack of training in a mental health discipline. (Brief of Appellee, P.38) In fact, the District Court specifically stated that it "does not intend . . . to pass upon the question of whether Mr. Grigsby possesses the necessary qualifications for the job from which he was discharged, or whether Mr.Van Horn possesses qualifications superior to those of Mr. Grisby's. The only question which is now before this Court and which the Court will address is whether Mr. Grigsby's discharge was prompted by illegal motivation, that of race." (Tr. Tr. 902) Thus, the Court made no effort to compare the qualifications of Mr. Grigsby with his predecessor or successor as required by East v. Romine, 518 F.2d (5th Cir. 1975). It is clear that by virtue of his Bachelor and Master's Degrees, several years of work experience, and one year of experience with the program that Mr. Grigsby possessed qualifications superior or at least equal to his successor, Mr. Van Horn, who had just finished school and who obtained his clinical experience as part of his course study. (Tr. Tr. 749) 6. PLAINTIFF EDDIE BLACK; East v. Romine, Inc., supra, was also violated here. It was not shown at trial that Buddy Ramage, who previously held the position Mr. Black was seeking, had any previous supervisory experience or any experience whatsoever over drug or alcoholism counselors. If the Medical Center could hire Buddy Ramage who did not nave supervisory experience or any 6 O ' o experience as a drug or alcoholic counselor, why was Eddie Black, who had one year of experience with the program, two months in-service training, and a Certificate in Alcoholism with courses in supervision from Atlanta University, not qualified. (Tr. Tr. 471, 472) Moreover, Eldridge Fleming, Director of Alcoholism at the Mental Health Complex, acknowledged that Mr. Black could have handled the Coordinator position with six months of training; he stated that he did not have time to give Mr. Black any additional supervisory experience during the six months the Coordinator position remained vacant. (Tr. Tr. 245) But Kelly Ferguson, a new employee, admitted that it took him three or four months to familiarize himself 1/ with the program. (Tr. Tr., 456) 7. PLAINTIFF ESSIE SNEED, testified that she was terminated while in the hospital for an injury she re ceived on the job. (Tr. Tr., 627) Appellee states that there is no evidence to corroborate her testimony that she was hospitalized at the time she was terminated. (Brief of Defendant-Appellee, P.43) However, since appellee 1/ When the district court ruled on Mr. Black's claim it stated that Kelly Ferguson, who replaced Buddy Ramage, possessed a Master's Degree. The Court,after being reminded that the record did not support such a finding - indeed Mr. Ferguson had no credits towards a Masters - revised its findings. (Tr. Tr. 912-913) 7 o presented no evidence to rebut Sneed's testimony, no corroboration was necessary. The only witness present ed to rebut Sneed's prima facie case was Barry Wright, the personnel Manager, and he stated that he did not know that Sneed was in the hospital when she was terminated. (Tr. Tr., 842) Appellee is now apparently changing its position with regard to Essie Sneed. At trial appellee took the position that Sneed was to be denied relief because when deposed she stated that she did not believe that race was the cause of her termination. (Tr. Tr., 908) However, the appellee now concedes that the issue is whether Sneed was in fact terminated because of race. The Medical Center concedes that it does not terminate white employees for absences necessitated by an on-the-job injury; Sneed, who is black, was terminated for that reason; the burden shifted to the Medical Center to demonstrate why Sneed was treated differently. The Medical Center did'not even attempt to meet this burden. Respectfully submitted MELVYN R. LEVENTHAL 10 Columbus Circle New York, N.Y. 10019 KENNETH MAYFIELD 303^ West Main Street Tupelo, MS. 38801 Attorneys for Appellants 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Reply Brief were served by United States mail, postage prepaid, on the 10th day of May, 1977, on counsel for defendant-appellee as follows: Guy Mitchell, Jr. Esq. Post Office Box 466 Tupelo, Mississippi 33801