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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT