LEAVEY CASE DEMANDS JUSTICE

LEAVEY A VICTIM OF REVERSE DISCRIMINATION


Former interim City of Detroit Corporate Counsel Kathleen Leavey did more than catch a bad break when, during a conference call earlier this year, she shared a viewpoint regarding how some perceive Detroit’s 36th District Court. Her demanded resignation and return to her previous civil servant position within Detroit’s law department arguably was nothing short of reverse discrimination against a white employee for exercising her First Amendment rights.

Leavey, during the conference call, indicated that some view 36th District Court as a “ghetto court”. Her use of the term has been attacked as “racist” by 36th District Court Chief Judge Marilyn Atkins, who was on the conference call. Atkins fired off a letter to Leavey in mid-January, and shortly afterward, Detroit officials asked her to resign her appointed position as the city’s top legal officer. For the record, all appointed persons serve at the pleasure of the appointer and may be “un-appointed” without cause. But this is where the Leavey situation goes bad.

Leavey, who filed a lawsuit against the city of Detroit on April 7th alleging discrimination, retaliatory defamation and First Amendment retaliation, maintains that she was forced to resign, revert back to civil servant status and take a 30 percent pay cut because she made a statement reflecting the sentiment of others that city officials then viewed as racist. Leavey is asking for damages, asserting that she is a victim of reverse discrimination. I agree with her.

Atkins and others have alleged that, given that the majority of 36th District Court judges are black, and a black president was on the verge of taking office, Leavey’s choice of words were insulting, inappropriate, and racist. Racist? I don’t think so.

When a certain Mount Clemens city official used the term “boatnxxxxx” in a downtown bar, that was racist. When a certain Armada official called a white female “nxxxxx”, that was racist. When a black Mount Clemens School District teacher engaged in a rant against white people, that was racist (I advocated for her termination, but was over-ruled by district administrators and fellow school board members). When Kathleen Leavey used the term to describe what others were categorizing as the quality of services received at 36th District Court, well, that was freedom of speech, plain and simple.


This issue brings to mind the ridiculous contention that blacks can use the word “nxxxxx” with reckless abandon and somehow that’s ok, even endearing. But when whites use the term, it takes on a much more offensive and sinister meaning. The term is offensive, no matter who uses it, and no one, black or white, should use the term without consequence. But in this instance, if Leavey had been black and actually directly used the word “ghetto” to describe her personal assessment of the court, it is highly likely nothing like forced resignation would have happened to her.

According to informed sources, Leavey’s contract specified that she was an at-will employee, serving at the pleasure of the mayor. Further, it indicated that she could be replaced “without cause:. If Leavey had been “un-appointed” and no reason given, the city perhaps would have no legal vulnerability. Once a “reason” (her statement) was attached to it, it became a potential “causative” or litigatible issue.

Can everyone please say “ghetto fabulous?”

Can I speak for all blacks? No. But I have been black for 55 years and I do know that blacks use the term “ghetto” to describe the quality, or lack of quality, of a thing. In the Leavey case, the term was not being used as a racial identifier, but rather being used as an adjective to describe a perceived lack of professionalism on the part of court employees when providing customer services. And she was talking about other people’s viewpoint, not her personal one. There is a huge difference, and, sadly, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow now will have to define what that is.