Anthony Slayden v. Center for Behavioral Medicine
53 F.4th 464
8th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Slayden worked ~21 years as a security officer at the Center for Behavioral Medicine (CBM) and filed an internal grievance against supervisor Mike Seward on August 9, 2018; HR investigated and found the grievance unsubstantiated (recorded Oct. 16, 2018).
- Slayden filed charges with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and the EEOC on July 24, 2019; the EEOC charge described discriminatory incidents only through Aug. 10, 2018 and noted the HR finding on Oct. 16, 2018.
- Claims asserted: racially hostile work environment, disparate treatment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under the MHRA and Title VII; Slayden resigned Dec. 2019.
- Slayden testified Seward was the only discriminator and that Seward did not harass him after Slayden’s Aug. 9, 2018 grievance; Slayden alleged three separate retaliatory acts by HR in mid–late 2019.
- The district court granted summary judgment for CBM, finding the hostile-work-environment and discrimination claims time‑barred and Slayden failed to exhaust administrative remedies for retaliation and constructive discharge.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: hostile-work-environment/discrimination claims were untimely; retaliation and constructive-discharge claims were not exhausted before the EEOC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of hostile work environment / discrimination claims | Slayden: his need to avoid Seward after Aug. 9, 2018 and continued harassment through Seward's mid‑2019 resignation made the charge timely | CBM: the EEOC/MCHR filing deadlines run from the last discrete act alleged in the charge; the charge described incidents only through Aug. 2018/Oct. 2018 HR finding | Court: claims time‑barred—Slayden’s charge did not timely allege a discrete act within the filing window |
| Exhaustion of retaliation claims | Slayden: the EEOC charge’s “continuing action” language and narrative sufficiently encompassed later HR retaliation | CBM: the charge described Seward’s conduct and HR’s investigation outcome, not the mid‑2019 retaliatory acts; those discrete acts were not alleged to EEOC | Court: retaliation claims not exhausted—the alleged retaliatory acts were not reasonably related to the EEOC charge |
| Exhaustion of constructive discharge claim | Slayden: constructive discharge is related to the hostile-work-environment allegations and should be covered | CBM: charge gave no hint of an impending constructive discharge; resignation occurred months after the charge | Court: constructive discharge not exhausted—claim could not reasonably be expected to arise from the initial charge |
| Failure to remediate as independent discrimination | Slayden: CBM’s failure to remedy (HR investigation outcome) continued the discrimination | CBM: HR investigated and found the grievance unsubstantiated; remedial‑failure alone is not a discrete act of discrimination | Court: rejected—no record support that HR’s actions were race‑based discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (hostile work environment is a series of separate acts; timely filing requires at least one timely act)
- Henson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 3 F.4th 1075 (constructive discharge is a discrete act distinct from hostile‑work‑environment and exhaustion requires relatedness)
- Wallin v. Minn. Dep’t of Corr., 153 F.3d 681 (retaliation claims are not reasonably related to underlying discrimination claims for exhaustion purposes)
- Fanning v. Potter, 614 F.3d 845 (scope of civil suit limited to investigations reasonably expected from the administrative charge)
- Delight Wholesale Co. v. EEOC, 973 F.2d 664 (relatedness standard for exhaustion of EEOC claims)
- Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (filing period for constructive discharge claims runs from actual resignation—distinguishes exhaustion vs. filing‑period issues)
- Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797 (simply checking a box on a charge is insufficient; narrative must reasonably alert agency)
- Bacon v. Hennepin Cnty. Med. Ctr., 550 F.3d 711 (self‑serving affidavits insufficient to defeat properly supported summary judgment)