Irac Briefing - Kalamazoo County Road Commission, Et Al V. Robert Deleon and Mae Deleon

IRAC Briefing - Kalamazoo County Road Commission, et al v. Robert Deleon and Mae Deleon

Tiffani Butler

LAW/531

January 8, 2015

Louise Kirk

IRAC Briefing - Kalamazoo County Road Commission, et al v. Robert Deleon and Mae Deleon

This case was filed in May 2011 by Robert Deleon, who alleged that he faced age and racial discrimination when he was transferred from his job as an area superintendent to equipment and facilities superintendent in August 2009. Deleon, a Mexican-American, was 48 years old at the time of the transfer and had worked for the Road Commission since 1983. According to his lawsuit, he initially applied for the job of equipment and facilities superintendent in November 2008, but did not get the job. Seven months later, when the job was open again, Deleon was transferred into it, but did not get the raise he sought. Deleon stated in court documents, a raise was justified because the new job required him to be in an office and enclosed garage facility with running trucks and equipment that resulted in constant exposure to diesel fumes. Deleon stated he developed bronchitis and experienced sinus headaches because of the area quality. He also said his poor relationship with the commission's general superintendent, resulted in a hostile work environment. In 2010, Deleon stated he experienced a work-induced, stress-related mental breakdown and was off work for eight months under FMLA. By the time he was cleared by his psychiatrist to return to work in August 2011, he had been terminated for exhausting all of his sick time (“Kalamazoo County Road Commission, et al, Petitioners, v. Robert Deleon and Mae Deleon, Respondents,” 2014). 

In 2012, Deleon’s lawsuit was dismissed by Federal District Judge. The judge granted the County Road Commission’s request for a summary judgment on the basis that Deleon could not protest being assigned a job that he initially sought. The dismissal was overruled by a 2-1 vote of the Appeals Court. The appellate court stated in its majority opinion that the record reflected that Deleon applied for the position with the intention of commanding a substantial raise and under the impression that employment benefits would inure to the benefit of his career. The request for ‘hazard pay,’ which Deleon never received, tilted the issue as to whether Deleon really requested or wanted the position in his favor. The Supreme Court decision, allowed the Appeals Court ruling to stand. However, Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissent saying he would have reversed the ruling. Alito wrote, “An old maxim warns: Be careful what you wish for; you might receive it. In the Sixth Circuit, however, employees needs not be careful what they ask for because, if their request is granted and they encounter buyer's regret, they can sue,” (Hyman, 2015).