Ellen Robinson v. American Red Cross
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9512
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ellen Robinson, an African American employee, worked for the American Red Cross from 2003; she received multiple promotions prior to 2010 but later received warnings, suspensions, and was terminated in Oct. 2012.
- Robinson applied for several internal positions (On the Job Instructor, DOT Administrator, Administrative Assistant II) in 2010–2011; she alleged she was passed over because of race; the Red Cross contends the selected candidates were more qualified and that Robinson lacked required credentials for one vacancy.
- In July 2011 a donor complaint led to suspension and a final written warning after a new zero-tolerance policy; Robinson filed an EEOC race-discrimination charge that month and later a retaliation charge in Oct. 2012.
- From mid-2012 the Red Cross issued additional warnings and suspended Robinson for alleged unprofessional conduct; it terminated her after concluding she created a hostile environment and compromised donor service; her position was later filled by an African American.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Red Cross on Robinson’s Title VII, § 1981, ACRA discrimination claims, retaliation claims, and state outrage claim; Robinson appealed and the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promotion/training discrimination | Robinson: she was better qualified and denied promotions/training because of race | Red Cross: selected applicants were more qualified; Robinson failed to contest the facts; local rule deems employer's factual statement undisputed | Affirmed: Robinson waived some promotion claims; undisputed record shows hires more qualified; no prima facie case |
| Suspension/termination discrimination | Robinson: suspensions and firing were motivated by race | Red Cross: discipline followed donor complaints and policy; many white employees were similarly disciplined/terminated; replacement was Black | Affirmed: Robinson failed to show she met legitimate expectations or disparate treatment by similarly situated non‑protected employees |
| Retaliation (Title VII & ACRA) | Robinson: termination in Oct. 2012 was retaliation for her July 2011 EEOC charge (and later filings) | Red Cross: lack of causal link; long time lags and no evidence decision‑makers knew of charges | Affirmed: temporal gap and lack of other evidence fail to establish causal connection; many alleged earlier retaliatory acts not timely or administratively exhausted |
| Outrage (state tort) | Robinson: employer’s close monitoring, write‑ups and ‘nitpicking’ caused severe emotional distress | Red Cross: conduct was ordinary workplace discipline and not extreme | Affirmed: Arkansas requires extreme, outrageous conduct and severe distress; Robinson’s evidence insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Butler v. Crittenden Cnty., Ark., 708 F.3d 1044 (summary judgment standard and McDonnell Douglas application in Eighth Circuit)
- McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855 (applying McDonnell Douglas to retaliation claims)
- Allen v. Tobacco Superstore, Inc., 475 F.3d 931 (requirement that replacement/promoted employee be similarly situated)
- Haigh v. Gelita USA, Inc., 632 F.3d 464 (courts may not second‑guess legitimate business decisions)
- Ellis v. Houston, 742 F.3d 307 (elements for retaliation and causation analysis)
- Trammel v. Simmons First Bank of Searcy, 345 F.3d 611 (temporal proximity limits for inferring retaliation)
- Burkhart v. Am. Railcar Indust., Inc., 603 F.3d 472 (Arkansas’ strict standard for outrage claims)
- Kiersey v. Jeffrey, 253 S.W.3d 438 (defining elements and high threshold for outrage in Arkansas)