Kimble v. Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

690 F. Supp. 2d 765 (2010)

From our private database of 47,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kimble v. Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
690 F. Supp. 2d 765 (2010)

Facts

Johnny Kimble (plaintiff), a Black male, was the longtime supervisor of the Milwaukee office of the Civil Rights Bureau, which fell within the Equal Rights Division (ERD) of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (department) (defendant). Kimble reported to Leanna Ware, a White female who also supervised Georgina Taylor, an Argentinian woman who supervised the Civil Rights Bureau’s Madison office. Ware reported to the ERD administrator, J. Donoghue (defendant), who oversaw both the Civil Rights Bureau and the Labor Standards Bureau. James Chiolino and Mike Dixon, both White males, were supervisors in the Labor Standards Bureau. The ERD administrator could authorize bonuses and raises. In the 12 years that Donoghue was administrator, she awarded Kimble only one $300 bonus and no pay raises. In contrast, she granted Taylor a $0.50 pay raise, Dixon a $1.00 pay raise, and Chiolino two pay raises totaling $3.00. For most of Donoghue’s tenure, Kimble was the only Black male ERD supervisor. Kimble sued the department and Donoghue, alleging that Donoghue’s failure to award him a raise constituted discrimination based on race and gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Donoghue argued that her failure to award a raise was not because of discrimination but instead because Kimble’s performance was never sufficient to merit one. However, when testifying, Donoghue was evasive and defensive and often contradicted herself. Additionally, Kimble’s annual performance reviews by Ware attested that he performed well and met goals. The district court considered the parties’ arguments.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Adelman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 914,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 914,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 999 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 914,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,300 briefs - keyed to 999 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership