Judge rules in favor of township in alleged racial discrimination case

Former inspector: contract not renewed due to objecting to boss’s comments

A federal judge has ruled in favor of Orion Township after a lawsuit by a former township contract inspector claimed he suffered retaliation after confronting a supervisor about racially insensitive comments.

Mark Booth, who worked as a mechanical inspector for Orion Township, filed a lawsuit against the township saying his contract was not renewed because he objected to alleged racist comments by his former boss, David Goodloe, the head of the township’s building department.

A request for summary judgment was granted after a former independent contractor for Orion Township alleged racial discrimination. A Feb. 6 motion for summary judgement was taken under advisement by the judge, meaning a written opinion would follow. Summary judgment is a request for the court to rule that the other party has no case, because there are no facts at issue.

Jim Rasor, Booth’s attorney, said Goodloe allegedly made the comments against Hispanic workers at construction sites which both men were visiting.

“His supervisor made disparaging comments against Hispanic people on multiple occasions,” Rasor said.

According to the lawsuit, Goodloe said he did not like Hispanics because they caused him to lose money, he didn’t understand how they could work out of low-rider trucks and that he wished they could listen to American music while working.

Eventually, Booth spoke up, according to the lawsuit, saying that he found the comments offensive because he was Hispanic.

“Immediately his relationship with his supervisor changed,” Rasor said.

In November 2017, according to the lawsuit, Booth’s relationship with Goodloe changed and the supervisor later informed him that his contract for 2018 would not be renewed.

“I feel like he retaliated against me,” Booth said.

As part of the summary judgement, Judge George Caram Steeh ruled that the plaintiff (Booth) was not able to demonstrate that his constitutional rights were violated by Goodloe. Booth cannot establish municipal liability.

“The center of the dispute here is whether Defendants articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not renewing his contract and whether Booth has demonstrated pretext,” Steeh said in his written opinion.

In reference to Booth asking why his contract would not be renewed, Booth was told that he didn’t fit the “culture” of the department. But Booth was unable to provide sufficient evidence of retaliatory motive.

“This conversation occurred before Booth told Goodloe that he did not care for Goodloe’s comments about Mexicans. Goodloe considered not renewing Booth’s contract before Booth’s alleged protected conduct, thus diminishing the causal link between the protected conduct and adverse action,” read the summary judgement.

Steeh ruled that because Booth failed to demonstrate that his constitutional rights were violated by Goodloe, he cannot establish municipal liability.

The request for summary judgement was granted on March 10.