Floyd-Gimon v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Ex Rel. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas
716 F.3d 1141
8th Cir.2013Background
- UAMS terminated Floyd-Gimon for gross misconduct after audit discrepancies, including allegedly altered records and “cut and pasted” entries.
- Two liver transplant coordinators, Floyd-Gimon and Belcher, were involved in audit documentation; investigations traced altered patient records.
- Floyd-Gimon was placed on administrative leave and later terminated following internal investigations and a May 9, 2008 meeting.
- Floyd-Gimon sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process and gender-based equal protection violations; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Grievance procedures and absence of a grievance committee appointment were at issue regarding process and post-termination review.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, addressing both due process and equal protection defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property interest due process claim viability | Floyd-Gimon had a property interest in continued employment. | Arkansas at-will doctrine; no protected property interest created by UAMS. | Assumed property interest, but pre- and post-termination process satisfied; no due process violation. |
| Liberty interest (reputation) due process claim | Floyd-Gimon was denied a name-clearing hearing. | Grievance communications did not raise a liberty-interest claim. | No entitlement to a name-clearing hearing; communications did not sufficiently allege liberty interest due process. |
| Equal protection (gender discrimination) | Termination was motivated by gender discrimination. | Proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (altering records); no pretext shown. | No direct evidence of discrimination and no pretext established; no equal protection violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loudermill, Board of Education of City of City of Ohio v., 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pre-termination due process for property interests; notice and opportunity to respond)
- Young v. City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 2001) (due process requirements for property interests; pre/post process)
- Eddings v. City of Hot Springs, 323 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2003) (state-law creation of property interest; summary judgment standards)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2009) (McDonnell Douglas analysis applied to gender discrimination)
- Rosenstein v. City of Dallas, 876 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1989) (name-clearing hearing when liberty interest is implicated)
- Ludwig v. Bd. of Trs. of Ferris State Univ., 123 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 1997) (requires explicit alert of liberty-interest challenge for name-clearing hearing)
- Rush v. Perryman, 579 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2009) (liberty interest due process distinctions in appeal)
- Hill v. City of Pine Bluff, 696 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (equal protection analysis; McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., 686 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2012) (similarly situated comparator requirement for pretext)
- Strong v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., 482 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 2007) (comparator analysis; different roles may yield different standards)
- Clearwater v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 166, 231 F.3d 1122 (8th Cir. 2000) (direct vs. non-direct evidence; nonmaterial statements excluded)