ILNews

Coroner's office loses 2nd reverse-discrimination appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a reverse-discrimination case against Marion County should be able to proceed in federal court in Indianapolis because evidence shows the former county coroner’s decision to terminate a forensic pathology company’s contract may have been based on race.

A unanimous decision came today in Stephen Radentz, et al. v. Marion County, et al., No. 10-1523, which involves the line of litigation stemming from actions by former Marion County Coroner Kenneth Ackles and Chief Deputy Coroner Alfarena Ballew when they were in the office in 2005 and 2006.

In this case, Ackles and Ballew terminated plaintiff Forensic Pathology Associates of Indiana’s five-year contract that had started in 2005 and entailed providing the county office with physicians and support staff for forensic pathology services and autopsies. The management contended it was because of excessive costs and the contract termination saved the county several hundred thousand dollars a year on what it paid for out-of-county autopsy supplies. Forensic Pathology alleged the county office had been pleased with the quality of work and instead this was part of a broader effort to replace white workers with African-Americans. At one point after the contract’s termination, Ackles indicated he’d been pleased with the forensic services, but at the time cited a contract provision allowing termination without cause within six months to end the contract. He replaced Forensic Pathology with an African-American pathologist, Dr. Joyce Carter. All of that led to this federal suit.

U.S. Judge William Lawrence in the Southern District of Indiana granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against Forensic Pathology and its founders. But the 7th Circuit disagreed with those findings based on the record in this case, determining at several points that evidence shows a trend that Ackles and Ballew based their decision more on race than budgetary reasons.

Part of the evidence in the record included statements from employees who’d overheard statements about replacing white workers with African-Americans, the overall racial makeup shift in that office during Ackles’ term, and that the contract allowed for ending those autopsy services rather than cancelling the entire contract itself. The appellate panel rejected the defendants’ arguments that the court didn’t have the authority to examine the office’s decision-making process, finding that it had the authority to determine whether the asserted justification given was honest-held.

“Taken as a whole, we cannot conclude that a jury would have been compelled to believe the defendants’ explanation,” Circuit Judge Illana Diamond Rovner wrote for the panel that also included Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judge Richard Posner. “The issue before us is whether summary judgment was proper. There is a factual dispute as to whether the decision to terminate the contract was based on a nondiscriminatory reason or whether it was race-based.”

This decision remands the case back to the District level to continue proceedings.

This is the second time during the past year the county has lost a case involving the former coroner. In July 2010, the 7th Circuit in Marion County Coroner’s Office v. EEOC, No. 09-3595, affirmed the District’s findings of discrimination and retaliation in a suit filed by former Chief Deputy Coroner John Lineham. Lineham, who is white, was fired by Ackles in December 2005 and replaced with Ballew, an African-American woman.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT