/f3d/935/0633-01

basis: no-evidence; party: Councilman Holcomb and other officials; theory: Independent or combined municipal discrimination; subject: party=Councilman Holcomb and other officials; theory=Independent or combined municipal discrimination

Ridgell sued the City and Hollingsworth under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that they had racially discriminated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. At trial, Ridgell presented evidence of alleged comparator employees. Steve Miller, the Caucasian head of the City's Finance Department, had been disciplined, but not terminated, for failing to comply with one of Hollingsworth's directives, for going to the gym while taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and for tardiness. Ridgell testified that Robert Tucker, a Caucasian male, regularly arrived late to work but had never been disciplined.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have concluded that Holcomb's vote against overriding the mayor's action was based on race. Holcomb voted to override Hollingsworth's first termination of Ridgell because he believed at the time that Ridgell "was in the right." He later met with the City's human resources director and Hollingsworth and learned about the problems with Ridgell's work performance and tardiness. Based on this information, he concluded that Ridgell's second termination was the right decision, and said he had no reason to believe that Hollingsworth's decision was motivated by race.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

There was no evidence to contradict Holcomb's testimony, and Ridgell presented no other evidence supporting an inference that Holcomb voted against reinstatement because of Ridgell's race.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

In sum, Ridgell does not challenge the jury's finding that Hollingsworth did not discriminate against Ridgell based on race. There is insufficient evidence that any other city official, or a combination of Hollingsworth and other municipal officials or employees, discriminated against Ridgell based on race.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

basis: law; party: City of Pine Bluff; theory: Liability premised on Mayor Hollingsworth’s actions; subject: party=City of Pine Bluff; theory=Liability premised on Mayor Hollingsworth’s actions

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hollingsworth but against the City on Ridgell's claims of race discrimination and awarded damages of $24,080.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The only municipal official or employee whom Ridgell cited to the jury as a wrongdoer was Hollingsworth.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

A municipality can act only through its employees, so a plaintiff seeking damages against a municipality under § 1983, for race discrimination that violated § 1981, must show that a municipal official or employee racially discriminated against him. See Jett v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist. , 491 U.S. 701, 735-36, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989) ; Russell v. Hennepin County , 420 F.3d 841, 846 (8th Cir. 2005).

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Insofar as the case rests entirely on alleged wrongdoing by Hollingsworth, the City is entitled to judgment. The jury's finding that Hollingsworth did not racially discriminate against Ridgell means that the City cannot be held liable based on discrimination by Hollingsworth.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)