Bunch v. University of Arkansas Board of Trustees
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13257
8th Cir.2017Background
- Gloria Bunch, an African-American woman, was hired in June 2010 by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences for STRIVE and was subject to a 90-day probationary period; a performance review in late August extended her probation and rated her unsatisfactory for cooperation.
- Bunch complained about coworker harassment, raised disability issues (depression, fibromyalgia, anxiety, osteoarthritis), sought leave and reasonable accommodation, and requested FMLA leave after a doctor said she needed two weeks off.
- The university informed Bunch she was ineligible for FMLA due to insufficient tenure and hours; Bunch filed an EEOC charge shortly thereafter.
- Approximately one week after the FMLA denial and EEOC charge, the university terminated Bunch’s employment citing absenteeism and departmental need to fill the position.
- Procedurally, Bunch proceeded through a protracted series of appointed attorneys (thirteen) who largely withdrew; the district court eventually granted summary judgment to the university on all claims and dismissed individual defendants for lack of service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court’s treatment of pro se status | Bunch says court failed to account for her lack of counsel and denied discovery opportunity | Court had discretion; repeatedly appointed counsel and warned Bunch to cooperate; pro se status does not excuse rule noncompliance | Court did not err; pro se status did not require special treatment and no denial of discovery shown |
| Sovereign immunity for ADA, ADEA, §1981, §1983 claims | Bunch sought to proceed against university and suggested individual discriminators should be treated as defendants | State (and state universities) are immune from suits under these statutes absent waiver; plaintiff did not properly amend to add individuals | Claims barred by sovereign immunity; dismissal affirmed |
| Title VII disparate-treatment claim | Bunch contends termination was discriminatory and points to a younger white female who allegedly received leave | University offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (absenteeism; need to fill position); comparators not shown to be similarly situated | Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiff failed to show a similarly situated comparator or pretext for discrimination |
| Title VII retaliation claim | Bunch asserts termination was retaliation for requesting leave, complaining, and filing an EEOC charge | Temporal proximity alone insufficient; university notes lack of other evidence connecting protected conduct to termination | Summary judgment affirmed: no evidence beyond timing to establish causation for retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Moody v. Vozel, 771 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard / inferences to nonmoving party)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 1998) (no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases)
- In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040 (8th Cir. 1986) (appointment of counsel in civil cases is discretionary)
- Bennett v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2002) (pro se litigants must follow local rules)
- Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (states generally immune from ADA suits)
- Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 F.3d 62 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (age-discrimination claims and state immunity)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state and state officials sued in official capacity not subject to damages under §1983)
- Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 684 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2012) (requirement to show similarly situated comparator)
- Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516 (8th Cir. 2007) (skeletal allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Guimaraes v. SuperValu, Inc., 674 F.3d 962 (8th Cir. 2012) (elements of a retaliation claim)
- Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1999) (temporal proximity alone usually insufficient to show retaliation)
- Okruhlik v. Univ. of Ark., 255 F.3d 615 (8th Cir. 2001) (Title VII claims against state not barred by sovereign immunity)
- Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591 (8th Cir. 2007) (Ex parte Young limitations and state university suits)