Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

AHMAD WINTERS v. IOWA STATE UNIV.

July 1, 1991

CLYDE AHMAD WINTERS, Plaintiff,
v.
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant


Milton I. Shadur, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHADUR

MILTON I. SHADUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Clyde Ahmad Winters ("Winters") has filed and pursued, on his own, a race discrimination action *fn1" against his former employer Iowa State University ("University"), charging it with having retaliated against him for bringing an earlier Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charge against University back in the late 1970s. Each side has now brought a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 56. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, University's motion is granted, Winters' is denied and this action is dismissed.

 Summary Judgment Procedure

 Familiar Rule 56 principles impose on the movant the burden of establishing the lack of a genuine issue of material fact ( Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986)). For that purpose this Court is "not required to draw every conceivable inference from the record -- only those inferences that are reasonable" -- in the light most favorable to the nonmovant ( Bank Leumi Le-Israel, B.M. v. Lee, 928 F.2d 232, 236 (7th Cir. 1991) and cases cited there). Where as here cross-motions are involved, that principle thus demands a dual perspective -- one this Court has sometimes described as Janus-like -- that sometimes causes the denial of both motions. Fortunately that has not occurred here.

 In this instance Winters, a nonlawyer, has obviously done his best to comply with the requirements of Rule 56 and this District Court's General Rule ("GR") 12(m) and 12(n) implementing Rule 56. University's responses submitted through its counsel, Iowa Assistant Attorney General John Parmeter, have sought to do the same.

 Even though some portions of the parties' submissions might be viewed as falling short of the admissible-in-evidence requirement of Rule 56(e), there is really no dispute about what have proved to be the material facts under the circumstances here -- that is, the uncontroverted portions of the parties' cross-submissions have proved sufficient to dispose of the motions and hence the case itself. For purposes of identification and reference throughout this opinion, here is what has been tendered in support of and in opposition to the motions: *fn2"

 
1. Winters' Motion for Summary Judgment (cited "W-P. Mo. --");
 
2. Winters' Statement of Material Facts (cited "W-P. 12(m) --");
 
3. Winters' Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment;
 
4. University's Resistance to Motion for Summary Judgment;
 
5. University's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts (cited "W-D. 12(n) --");
 
7. University's Motion To Continue Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment;
 
8. Winters' Response to Defendant's Motion To Continue Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment;
 
9. University's Motion for Summary Judgment;
 
10. University's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (cited "U-D. 12 (m) --");
 
11. University's Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment;
 
12. Winters' Response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (cited "U-P. 12(n) --"); and
 
13. Winters' Response to Defendant's Resistance to Motion For Summary Judgment and Resistance to Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment. *fn4"

 Facts

 Winters' claim has its roots over 16 years ago, when his nine months of employment as Director of University's Black Cultural Center came to an end. University's termination of his employment led to Winters' filing of an EEOC charge, and that in turn resulted in an April 1978 Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") under which (1) Winters agreed not to bring suit on his claim, (2) EEOC agreed not to process the charge further and (3) University, without admitting any violation of Title VII, agreed "to limit employment references on [Winters] to his dates of employment and positions held while employed by [University]" (W-P. Mo. Ex. 1). University's Affirmative Action Officer Charles Samuels ("Samuels") therefore sent interoffice communications to Professor and former Vice President for Student Affairs Dr. Wilbur Layton (id. Ex. 2) and Personnel Office Director Frank Brown (id. Ex. 3), recommending that University's responses to any future requests for references should read this way:

 
The information in Mr. Clyde Winters' employment records discloses only that he was employed as Director of the Black Cultural Center at Iowa State University from August 27, 1974 to May 31, 1975. We regret that we are unable to provide any further information on his behalf.

 Some eight years passed, and Winters applied to the Chicago Police Department ("CPD") for employment as a police officer. Winters of course listed University among his former employers. When the CPD sent its inquiry to University, George Jackson ("Jackson") of its Minority Student Affairs Department (who had not been one of the addressees of the Samuels memoranda) wrote back on March 10, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.