Harold B. Davis v. Wilson County, Tennessee

*The Honorable Judith E. Levy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan,
sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0512n.06
No. 15-6332
UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD B. DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; LEVY, District Judge.*
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. After first consulting a lawyer, Harold B.
Davis, an African-American, sent his resume and a cover letter unsolicited to 28 county
departments in Wilson County, Tennessee, in 2011. He was not aware of any open positions at
the time and he did not follow up with any department regarding receipt of his letter or job
openings. The County did not hire him.
Davis filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in 2013 and brought this lawsuit
soon thereafter. He alleges that Wilson County has a policy, custom, or practice of
discriminating against African-Americans in its hiring practices, and that Wilson County
discriminated against him. He seeks money damages for disparate treatment in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), and Tenn. Code
Ann. § 4-21-101, et seq. (“THRA”). He also contends that Wilson County’s practices have a

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-6332, Harold Davis v. Wilson County, Tennessee
-2-
disparate impact on African-Americans and other minorities in violation of Title VII and the
THRA.
The district court held that the statute of limitations barred most of Davis’s claims, and
that he had failed to establish a prima facie case for his § 1981 claim of disparate treatment,
which was not time-barred. It also refused to apply a spoliation of the evidence inference against
the County—which Davis had requested on account of the County’s alleged destruction of
Davis’s resumes—because the County had, in more than one instance, retained his resume.
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we are
convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. The district court’s opinion
carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the
reasons underlying its decision. Thus, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would
serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we
AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --