## Facts

- Arthur Perkins worked as a laborer for the Lake County Department of Utilities.
- He alleged workplace harassment and disparate treatment because he was (or was regarded as) American Indian, including denial of overtime, assignment to less desirable work, and racial comments.
- He claimed he was denied promotion to Site Supervisor I (and chances to test for supervisory roles) while a white male received the promotion, despite Perkins’s asserted greater seniority and skill.
- The employer sought summary judgment, arguing (1) Perkins was not qualified for the promotion and (2) Perkins was not American Indian and therefore not within a protected class on that basis.
- On protected-class status, the employer relied on genealogical and governmental records suggesting Perkins’s ancestry was classified as white and that he and close relatives were not enrolled with the Cherokee Nation.
- Perkins offered affidavits from family members asserting American Indian heritage, additional opinion evidence supporting his claimed identity, and evidence that he consistently identified as American Indian at work.
- The record indicated the employer had treated Perkins as American Indian during employment and disputed his status only after litigation began.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII required Perkins to prove “American Indian” status through objective genetic/genealogical proof or tribal enrollment to be a member of a protected class.
2. Whether Perkins could proceed under Title VII based on evidence that he self-identified as American Indian and was perceived and treated as such by the employer.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact on protected-class status and discriminatory treatment barred summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court refused to hold, as a matter of law, that Perkins was not American Indian for Title VII purposes.
- The court found triable fact disputes concerning Perkins’s protected-class status and whether alleged adverse treatment occurred because of that status (including perception-based discrimination).

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s protections against race and national-origin discrimination are not limited to classifications proven solely by genetic, genealogical, or administrative records.
- In evaluating “Indian” status for discrimination claims, relevant considerations may include some degree of Indian ancestry, community or tribal recognition, and self-identification; no single factor is necessarily dispositive at the summary-judgment stage.
- Title VII can reach discrimination based on an employer’s perception of an employee’s race, even if the employee’s ancestry or formal classification is disputed.
- Summary judgment is improper when material facts are genuinely disputed and the claim depends on inferences about identity, perception, and discriminatory motive.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Perkins’s Title VII case to proceed, holding that disputed evidence about his American Indian identity and the employer’s perception and treatment of him created genuine issues for a fact-finder, making summary judgment inappropriate.


Perkins v. Lake Cnty. Dep’t of Utils., 860 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ohio 1994)