David Harrell v. Gerald Robinson, 703 F. App'x 440

Background

Harrell, a JCSO deputy, was suspended and later fired after a series of on-duty auto accidents and an internal investigation that found policy violations and alleged deception; Sheriff Robinson sought his decertification but the state commission declined to decertify.
Harrell (Caucasian) alleges he complained to two supervisors that a prior accident investigation was racially biased; he claims supervisors warned him not to file a complaint and that those statements were threats.
Harrell filed an EEOC charge alleging race-based discipline and retaliation; after termination he had difficulty obtaining law-enforcement jobs.
JCSO provided Hot Springs PD with employment-file documents during Hot Springs’ background check, including Harrell’s EEOC charge and a transcript from the preliminary decertification hearing; Hot Springs did not hire him for the vacancy.
Harrell sued JCSO employees under § 1983, Title VII, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act for discrimination and retaliation and brought an FMLA claim; on summary judgment the district court dismissed his retaliation claims (except FMLA/racial claims which were later dismissed or tried), and the jury found for defendants on the FMLA claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination and attempted decertification were retaliation for Harrell's complaint of racial discrimination	Harrell says he engaged in protected activity by complaining and that his later termination/decertification efforts were retaliatory	Defendants say termination resulted from uncooperativeness, policy violations, and internal-investigation findings, not Harrell's complaint	Summary judgment for defendants; Harrell failed to show causation/but‑for retaliation
Whether JCSO’s disclosure of employment-file documents to Hot Springs was retaliatory and caused Harrell to lose the job	Harrell says providing his EEOC charge and hearing transcript to Hot Springs was a materially adverse retaliatory reference tied to his prior complaint	Defendants say disclosures were routine personnel-record responses and Harrell gave broad release; no evidence JCSO deviated from normal practices or acted with retaliatory intent	Summary judgment for defendants; Harrell failed to show causal link or departure from normal procedures
Whether temporal proximity supports causation for termination	Harrell implies timing supports inference of retaliation	Defendants point to intervening investigative misconduct and multiple non-retaliatory reasons for firing	Court found insufficient evidence of causation despite timing; non‑retaliatory reasons prevail
Whether Harrell preserved challenge to Pine Bluff reference	Harrell did not press error as to Pine Bluff disclosure on appeal	Defendants note waiver	Court treats Pine Bluff argument as waived

Key Cases Cited

Bradford v. Palmer, 855 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
McPherson v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc., 491 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard)
DePriest v. Milligan, 823 F.3d 1179 (8th Cir. 2016) (uniform standard for retaliation claims under § 1983, Title VII, and state civil‑rights statutes)
Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., 730 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2013) (elements of retaliation claim and but‑for causation requirement)
Shirrell v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 793 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2015) (application of McDonnell Douglas framework at summary judgment)
Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2016) (but‑for causation and evaluation of employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (distinguishing motivating‑factor and but‑for standards)
Bennett v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 721 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2013) (temporal proximity’s role in causation analysis)
Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (timing and causation in retaliation claims)
Hernandez v. Holder, 760 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2014) (appellate waiver doctrine)